Or is it?

When I talk to my students about grace I get the sense that it is an ethereal gas that floats down from God affecting various people (or not) as they breathe it in (or don’t). (i)

Paul talks about grace all the time – at the beginning and end of virtually all his letters, and all through Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. But what does it actually mean? The Greek word that is normally translated as grace is the word charis. It is a very rare word in the Jewish Scriptures but it actually was clearly understood in the Ancient Greek and Roman world because it represented something very concrete and familiar to them. It is not something ethereal and hard to grasp but would have had clear meaning to anyone at the time living within the Roman Empire.

At the time, wealth was distributed very unequally, with 1.5% controlling around 20% and 90% of the population living in abject poverty. There was no welfare state and it was everyone for themselves to survive. However, within the society was a system of giving, whereby the wealthiest would donate to those in need. The more people you had coming to you for help, the more important you were. Some would pay for religious festivals at which many sacrifices took place and at which the poor could get free meat. In return for this system of generosity, people did not riot.

The way that Paul is deploying grace… could denote two closely related but distinguishable things. It could denote (1) a gift, which was generally from a superior person, who had resources, to an inferior one, who lacked them… “benefaction.” It could also denote (2) the personal disposition on the part of the giver or benefactor to make such a gift. (ii)

When Paul refers to charis, a hearer at the time would fully understand its meaning because it was a clear and definite social structure within their world. “He or she would know that this God was donating generously – that he was a gift giving god – and that Jesus was the ultimate gift from God to us.” (iii) But here is the thing, as with so many other instances, Paul is taking a concept that was clearly understood and subverting it to show how the Kingdom of God is not like the empires of the world. Douglas Campbell identifies four key differences .

Self-Sacrificing

Rich people would never give to the point that it cost them. The fact that they could be generous without sacrifice a sign of their importance and wealth. The more people they could help, the more important they were and the more they derived status from it.

But, in order for God to give us Jesus, the father and the son gave the son. Jesus sacrificed everything. He became human and allowed himself to to be brutally murdered. No gift in history cost the giver as much as this.

This makes no sense. Benefaction was never meant to cost. This is not like the giving of the rich in the society of the time.

Lavish

God does not “throw us a bone” to keep us happy. The “grace” of the wealthy at the time was “measured and limited, even stingy.”(iv) The point of it was not to be generous but to keep people happy enough to not resort to revolution and to be seen as important.

The propensity of the God who gives through the gift of his Son is incalculable, and he does give; he gives us everything. He gives of his very self… mere “kindness” or “generosity” or “magnanimity” doesn’t really cut it… unless pushing the boundaries of this language beyond their cultural limits.(iv)

Grace is giving without any limit or regard for self but only for the recipient. The very opposite of the giving of the wealthy of the day.

Undeserved

A friend of a friend lives in the US now. He asked someone at his church why the idea of free healthcare was so unpalatable to people. They responded by saying, “because anyone can get free health care.” He was puzzled why this could be a problem and so asked. The response was, “but anyone could get free health care even if they do not deserve it.”

That is a perfect picture of the way that society worked at the time of Paul. The rich gave to those who deserved it. They did not  give to those who didn’t.

The grace of God is not like that. None of us is deserving of it and yet he gives to all regardless. He most certainly does not see social standing or achievement or “protestant work ethic” as a criteria.

He gives sacrificially, lavishly and indiscriminately to everyone.

Response and Expectations

When a rich benefactor gave, he expected something in return. He expected loyalty, votes, support, power, cheer-leading and recognition. When you received from someone, you essentially put yourself in their pocket.

With the first three Paul totally turns them on their head with his description of God’s grace. Less so with this.

Properly understood, grace, far from erasing a human response, expects a response – and with a whole heart, mind, soul and strength! Grace is supposed to elicit ethics and moral growth. (v)

Grace does not mean that we are to just sit back and do nothing. It does not mean that we can do whatever we want and then play our “Get out of Jail” Grace card (which I have seen done, or at least attempted)! We are meant to grow and change and become more like him…because that is what we are made for. That is eternal life. That is trusting Jesus.

That does not mean that his love is conditional. If we do not respond, his love is every bit as real towards us. Grace is still unconditional even if it looks for a response.

So, grace is not a weird concept, but a very concrete thing that demands a concrete response. If God has shown us this grace – this gift, then we need to show it to one another and those around us. As we have been given to, let us give to others.

That means giving or our time, resources and energy;

sacrificially,

lavishly,

indiscriminately and

unconditionally

 

May the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, be with you always.

 

 

(i) Campbell, Douglas, Pauline Dogmatics, 272. This entire post is my attempt to summarise the teaching from the chapter Love as Giving in this book.

(ii) Ibid, 274.

(iii) Ibid, 275.

(iv) Ibid, 277.

(v) Ibid 280.