Finally, in our review of Harrison’s work, we turn to his interpretation of Paul’s letters within the context of the Greco-Roman language of benefaction. Harrison divides his interpretation of the
__________
169 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 162. 170 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace,163. 171 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 161.
172 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 166. James Harrison offers two opposing perspectives on
the presence of the term χάρις in rabbinic literature. First, he notes the challenges that one faces in the effort to examine the rabbinic literature for conventions of benefaction. With regards to the challenges, Harrison says, “given the size of the rabbinic corpus and its different concerns, any discussion of the rabbinic view of grace can hardly be representative.” Second, he insists that rabbinic exegesis on the notion of grace might have arisen in response to Paul’s theology of grace. See Harrison, Paul’s Language
of Grace, 158–159. Rabbinic literature betrays interaction with the Greco-Roman culture that provides the
background for Paul’s language of grace. The evidence behind Harrison’s view that the language of grace in rabbinic literature is in response to Paul’s theology of grace is based on assumptions. This is because (1) Paul’s language of grace is against the backdrop of Greco-Roman conventions of benefaction; and (2) the notion of grace in rabbinic literature, essentially, is based on Jewish Scriptures. The rabbis see
themselves as interpreters of scripture. In other words, “the rabbis [see] themselves not as the creators of something new, but as the bearers of something old.” See Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987) 231. But Paul’s portrait of God is shaped by the
Greco-Roman world of his auditors. He appeals to Greco-Roman language of grace to persuade his auditors against the view of his Jewish Christian opponents’ vision of the Mosaic Law for Gentile Christians.
letters of Paul into (1) Paul and Divine Beneficence, and (2) Paul and Human Beneficence. Concerning Harrison’s exposition on ‘Paul and Divine Beneficence,’ he seeks to ascertain the “portrait of divine grace Paul sketches for first-century Christians living in the Western and Eastern Mediterranean basin.”173 Harrison analyzes the link between Greco-Roman benefaction
language and Paul’s honor and shame dynamics in the Letter to the Romans, particularly in his interpretation of Romans 1:23, 24a, 25b; 3:2–6, 9, 23. He notices, therefore, that members of Pauline churches are encouraged to free themselves from dependence on the benevolence of the city luminaries and “adopt the role of benefactor for themselves.”174 God is by far a Benefactor
superior to the Olympian gods, magic and the gods of the mysteries cults.
Harrison admits that “Paul endorses conventions from the honorific inscriptions that stress the obligation of the beneficiary to respond worthily of the Benefactor.”175 This admittance
is as a result of Harrison’s interpretation of Romans 1:14; 15:15–21; Galatian 1:15–16, etc. Yet he insists that Paul actually rejects and overturns the ethos of reciprocity for his gentile
Christians. He writes that Paul strongly proposes that unlike the benefaction of Greco-Roman gods and human benefactors, God’s gift of divine favor through Christ is “unilateral, not
reciprocal.”176 The death of Christ for the unworthy challenges traditional notion of benefaction,
especially the type proposed by philosophers. The philosophers suggested that potential benefactors should take into consideration the disposition of their beneficiaries. But because
__________
173 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 287. 174 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 287. 175 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 287. 176 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 288.
Christ’s act of benefaction is beyond the ability of the beneficiaries to reciprocate, Harrison concludes, “Christ however, [takes] no such precaution” from the philosophers.177
In the next major section of Harrison’s survey of Paul’s language of grace, namely, ‘Paul and Human beneficence,’ he notes,
Paul’s most extended discussion of beneficence—the Jerusalem collection—still awaits in-depth coverage against the backdrop of the honorific inscriptions. This is a curious oversight given the substantial overlap in benefaction language and motifs between Paul’s treatment of the Jerusalem collection and the honorific inscriptions.178
Harrisons contends that there is little surprise among Paul’s auditors on his use of benefaction terminology from the honorific inscriptions as he writes about the Jerusalem collection. Unlike the Hellenistic world where beneficiaries try to curry favor from local benefactors by honoring them, benefaction activities in the Christian community are driven by their “common experience of divine grace” to care for one another, especially the poor in Jerusalem.179 By weaving together
the benefaction terminologies of χάρις, κοινωνία, and διακονία, Harrison contends that Paul redefines Greco-Roman conventions of benefaction for his audience.180
In the Letter to Philemon Harrison further observes that Paul redefines traditional patron- client relationship of the Hellenistic world. The letter explains the kind of relationship that binds together Paul, Philemon, Onesimus and the Christian community that meets in the house of Philemon. On account of the web of relationships and obligations they share with one another,
__________
177 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 225. 178 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 291. 179 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 343. 180 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 343.
Paul emphasizes more than anything their brotherhood in Christ. Harrison concludes that it is very unclear to Paul how this web of relationship, obligation and “dynamic reciprocity between them in the context of first-century slavery” will be worked out.181 Therefore, Paul in Harrison’s
view, cautiously affirms “traditional reciprocity conventions while providing a glimpse for us of their social transformation in Christ.”182 Nevertheless, as a freedman in Christ, Onesimus is
returning to join the ranks of the local church that gathers in Philemon’s house as a brother and partner in the gospel (Phlm 11. 13, 16–17). Taken together, Harrison observes that Paul’s letter to Philemon, in fact, “could be viewed as reversing the direction of obligation between patrons and clients.”183
Turning next to Paul’s apostolic relationship with the gentile Christians in Corinth, Harrison suggests that in 2 Corinthians 10–13, Paul defends his practice of benefaction
conventions with the Corinthian Christians. He declares that he has proclaimed the gospel to the Corinthians by “waiving his right to any reciprocation of expense.”184 By appealing to
benefaction terminology, Paul portrays himself as a parent and benefactor to the Corinthians, who gladly spends (δαπανήσω) and is spent (ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι) for their souls (2 Cor 12:15a).
The ethos of reciprocity is an integral part of benefaction relationships in antiquity, both in the divine-human and human-human relationships. According to Harrison, the language of commensurability (ἄξιος, κατάξιος) and reciprocation (ἀμείβειν, ἀμοιβή, ἀντί) usually
__________
181 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 329. 182 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 328–329. 183 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 329. 184 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 333.
accompany the concept of χάρις.185 But Paul rarely uses them, and the occasions where
reciprocity terminology appear in his writings, he redefines it for his audience.186 Rather “Paul
chooses the language of abundance (πλοῦτος, περισσεύειν, ὑπερβάλλειν and their cognates) to accompany χάρις” in his letters. Therefore, he emphasizes “the abundance of God’s grace against the obligation of reciprocity.”187 The reason Paul completely avoids using Greco-Roman
terminologies of reciprocation that accompanies χάρις in his writings, according to Harrison, is because God, the Chief Benefactor, “operates on the basis of an overflowing grace over and against the obligation of reciprocity.”188 In effect, therefore, the relationship among believers is
based on their non-reciprocal relationship with God and it does not include the obligation of reciprocity.
Conclusion
The work of Harrison remains a well-researched analysis on the conventions of the benefaction motif in the Greco-Roman world. First, he shows how the background of the Greco-Roman world is the basis of Paul’s notion of grace. Second, he demonstrates the extent that Judaism has been influenced by Greco-Roman benefaction conventions. Third, he convincingly provides an analysis of how Paul appeals to the term χάρις in his letters. In divine-human relationship, God,
__________
185 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 348. 186 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 348.
187 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 348. In all intents and purposes, God’s benevolence
towards humanity is based on free grace. It neither depends on human merit nor expects human
reciprocation. For humanity, Harrison observes, “is incapable of reciprocating God’s infinite generosity (Rom 11:35; 1 Cor 4:7).” See Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace, 285.
the Chief Benefactor, has granted an overflowing sea of grace to humanity through Jesus Christ. And in human-human benefaction, the community of believers’ practice of benefaction is based on their experience of God’s benefaction. As such, for example, the Letter to Philemon will draw from the common experience of divine grace in persuading Philemon to welcome back
Onesimus as a believer and not as a slave. Fourth, Harrison takes the position that Paul overturns the Greco-Roman ethos of reciprocity that is an integral aspect of benefaction convention in the letters he writes to his gentile Christians.