Imagine someone two hundred years from now reading these words, “That ice around your neck is so cool!!
Two hundred years from now, how would someone reading the words “ice” interpret the word? Is ice a liquid that is frozen solid and being worn for decorative purposes around people’s necks for cooling purposes? How would they know what “ice” is referring to? They would have to study the usage of the word in the 21st century and make sure they didn’t impose their understanding of the word “ice” two hundred years later on the word “ice” way back in our day. We all know that “ice” worn around someone’s neck in the 21st century is a reference to a diamond.
Context controls the meaning of words. The cultural context in which the original word was used is what determines meaning, right? So Paul’s use of grace is determined by how the word group grace and gift (charis, dorea, dorema, charisma) is used in the 1st century, not by 16th century reformers or present day theological systems that are protecting a theology of grace! Grace (gift) was a common, ordinary word in the 1st century that had no special theological significance and Paul used the vocabulary of the day.
Think of grace as the glue that helped the poor survive. Life in1st century Greek, Roman and Jewish societies was a struggle for one’s daily bread. You did favors for others with the expectation of return when you might need help. It was all about storing up good will for when you were hungry or in need. Grace was insurance that you wouldn’t starve to death.
Grace was circular in nature meaning it was like throwing a ball back and forth. There was a continuous back and forth of favors done that held society together in tough times. Gifts came with an expectation of reciprocity! The gift came with obligation. You might call this expectation “strings attached” or “quid pro quo.” Sometimes the only strings attached are a response of gratitude or honor given to the giver of the gift. 2 Corinthians 9:15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!
Is it possible that we have messed up grace and missed the real meaning of grace? Could it be that we have imposed 16th century or 21 century theological ideas of unmerited favor, unconditional gifts that is far from what grace meant in the 1st century?
Sometimes when we seek to define a word, we push the word to an extreme excluding all possible meanings of the word except one. I call this killing the frog in order to study the frog. Words can have a range of meaning, not just one meaning. I’ll confess that I have killed the frog of grace by making grace one dimensional. I would passionately and persuasively argue that grace ceases to be grace if you add any conditions to it, but I was wrong. Grace doesn’t always mean “unmerited favor”! It doesn’t always mean “free gift”. For example look at the verses below.
1 Corinthians 16:3…your charis (financial gift) to Jerusalem
Romans 1:7 charis (favor or generosity) to you and peace from God our Father
2 Corinthians 9:15 charis (thanks) be to God for his indescribable gift
John Barclay came along and opened my eyes to 1st century context for grace. He exposed a major blindspot in how scholars and preachers were interpreting the term grace (charis). We should be wary of imposing our assumptions about gifts on other people or other periods of time, and we should operate with an open mind, since modern, Western construals of gift are by no means inherently “right.” (p. 4) If the 1st century context means anything, then Grace comes with expectation and obligation. The circular nature of grace which has obligation and reciprocity sets off theological chain reactions. For instance, read 1 Peter 2:24
He personally carried our sins
in his body on the cross
so that we can be dead to sin
and live for what is right.
The cross comes with the expectation and obligation to live for what is right. The cross is not a free gift that we can choose whether or not we want to take it up and follow Jesus. 2 Cor 8:1-13 is a good example Paul urging the Corinthians to reciprocate generosity because of the gift of Christ. Paul doesn’t command the reciprocity but seems to appeal to a sense of obligation stemming from Christ’s generosity to humans
John Barclay is profound when he says, “The grace of God is unconditioned (without prior consideration of worth) but not unconditional, if we mean by that the noncircular perfection of grace that expects nothing in return. Grace, for Paul, is not a gift from a disengaged benefactor who would rather be left alone; it is not a donation “with no strings attached.” to the contrary:” (p. 73)
Let’s get grace right! When we present the gospel, let’s not promise them something that God doesn’t promise them. The gift comes with expectations of obedience, of holiness. of living for what is right. I really love Romans 1:4 we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake. NASB