1

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

WHAT KIND OF GRACE?

A GIFT-CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF PAUL AND AUGUSTINE

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR PIETER BOTHA

IN FULFILLMENT OF

NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES RESEARCH REPORT

BY

MATHIAS SCHULTZ LAURSEN

STUDENT NUMBER 66467918

07.01.2020

2

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

2. What is a Gift? .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 The Gift in Anthropology ............................................................................................ 5

2.2 The Gift in The Greco-Roman World .......................................................................... 8

3. Words for Gift and Grace ................................................................................................ 11

4. Perfections of Grace ........................................................................................................ 12

5. Paul’s Concept of Grace .................................................................................................. 14

5.1 The Dynamics of Gift-giving ..................................................................................... 15

5.2 How Grace is Perfected ............................................................................................. 17

5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 19

6. Augustine’s Concept of Grace ......................................................................................... 20

6.1 The Personas of Adam and Christ .............................................................................. 20

6.2 The Content of the Gift .............................................................................................. 21

6.3 How Grace is Perfected ............................................................................................. 22

6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 24

7. Comparing Theologians of Grace .................................................................................... 25

7.1 How Grace is Received ............................................................................................. 26

7.2 Perfections of Grace .................................................................................................. 26

8. Conclusion: A Tale of Two Gardens................................................................................ 27

3

WHAT KIND OF GRACE?

A GIFT-CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF PAUL AND AUGUSTINE

1. Introduction

“And they are justified by his grace as a gift.” (Rom 3:24). Since Paul wrote his Letter to the

Romans, Christian theologians have sought to distil what exactly is meant by Paul’s concept

of grace. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Jean Calvin all inter-

preted Paul in different ways, thus obtaining different understandings of grace. If these de-

bates are to progress, it is important to obtain proper concepts and tools of analysis as a foun-

dation.

James R. Harrison underlines that: “(…) Paul in sharp contrast to the LXX, chose

χάρις (‘grace’) over against ἔλεος (‘mercy’) as his central description of beneficence (…).”1

Being the most frequent translation of ֶסד -mercy” or “covenantal faithfulness”) in the Sep“) ֶחֶ֥

tuagint, ἔλεος would have been an obvious term for Paul to employ for God’s beneficence.

But instead, Paul chose the word constituting the central leitmotiv in the Greek system of

gift-giving. He chose χάρις.2 This point must be considered when interpreting Paul’s concept

of grace.

This insight is taken into consideration by John M. Barclay, in his magnum opus Paul

and The Gift. Here, he notes that this primary word for grace employed by Paul is χάρις

which carries the meaning of “gift”. His main contribution to the discussion of grace in the

writings of Paul is to employ the concept of the gift as the primary approach of analysing

Paul’s view of grace.

1James R. Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, Wissenschaftliche Unter-

suchungen Zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 2. 2 Ibid.

4

Inspired by Barclay, this report wants to investigate how the concept of the gift may

be employed in the analysis of how grace is perceived in the central work of Paul: his Letter

to the Romans. Further, I will analyse the concept of grace of one of the earliest and most

thorough interpreters of Paul’s concept of grace: Augustine of Hippo.3

The investigation will be performed through an examination of what may be termed

“gift” through anthropological investigations and also by situating the gift in the Greco-Ro-

man World (chapter 2). I will then briefly study the words for grace and gift-giving employed

by Paul and Augustine in the selected texts (chapter 3), and describe and evaluate Barclay’s

six ways of perfecting grace (chapter 4). This in sum, will serve as the outset from which I

will analyse the concept of grace in Romans focussing on 5:12-21 (chapter 5). Thereafter I

will investigate Augustine’s concept of grace in his work The Propositions from the Epistle to

the Romans focussing on chapter 27-30 in which he comments on Rom 5:12-21 (chapter 6).

Having analysed both texts, I will finally compare their conceptions of grace in order to de-

termine the trajectory between them (chapter 7) and make a conclusion (chapter 8).

2. What is a Gift?

In order to investigate grace through the concept of the gift, I will have to investigate what is

meant by the notion “gift.” A modern, Western dictionary defines a gift as: “A thing given

willingly to someone without payment.”4 This notion of the gift as something you give solely

out of free will and with no strings attached, is, as anthropological research has demonstrated,

a novelty and unique to Western culture. Thus, I will seek to gain insight into the concept of

3 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 85. 4 “Gift | Definition of Gift by Lexico,” Lexico Dictionaries | English, n.d., https://www.lexico.com/en/defini-

tion/gift (seen 2019-10-09).

5

gift through anthropology and thereafter by situating the term in the relevant historical con-

text of the Greco-Roman World.

2.1 The Gift in Anthropology

2.1.1 The Contribution of Marcel Mauss

The most important contribution to the understanding of gift-giving was made by anthropolo-

gist Marcel Mauss in his book, Essai sur le Don, 1925. Here Mauss investigated the concept

of the gift in archaic societies and thereby changed how anthropologists have conceived the

dynamics of gift-giving ever since.5

In this work, Mauss’ holds that traditional societies prior to the modern, Western soci-

ety were not founded on natural economy.6 Instead, all of society was bound together through

the exchange of gifts. Mauss describes these archaic contracts with the old French word

prestation denoting a service undertaken out of obligation and hence similar to community

service. At an early stage in these societies, gifts were exchanged between larger communi-

ties and involved anything persons could give to each other. Not only objects, but also any

kind of polite acts such as: “banquets, rituals, military services, women, children, dances, fes-

tivals, and fairs”. With the term, système des prestations totales, Mauss denoted how all indi-

viduals and realms of society were bound together through this basic system of the total of

services. Everyone was part of the system, and everything existed to be given away. This is

the regime of the gift.7

5 Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection,

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 124 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 19. 6 Marcel Mauss and W. D. Halls, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, [2.] repr.

(London: Routledge, 1996), 5. 7 Keith Hart, “Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole. A Review Essay,” Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 49.2 (2007):

480; Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 5–6.

6

This system of total services contained three obligations: To give, to receive, and to

reciprocate. Both the refusal of either giving or receiving was absolutely unacceptable.

Equally necessary was the obligation to reciprocate. The reason for this was that a gift was

not a mere thing. It contained a part of the owner’s person or soul. Hence, the receiver had to

reciprocate in order to maintain balance.8 Until the receiver reciprocated, he was under debt,

and hence humbled. Often, the receiver wanted to reciprocate with interests in order to put

the other under a greater debt creating a competitive spiral.9

However, as Barclay notes, Mauss found that not everyone constituted a fitting recipi-

ent. One did not want to give to someone who would not be able to reciprocate, or from

whom one did not want reciprocation. Gifts established strong relational ties between clans or

between individuals, and thus one would not enter a relation of gift-giving with an unfitting

recipient.10

Mauss’ findings demonstrate how the gift was perceived in traditional societies. The

gift was defined by being at the one hand “free and disinterested.” Nevertheless, due to the

obligation of giving and reciprocating, the gift was simultaneously “constrained and self-in-

terested.”11 However confusing that may be to modern Westerners, these paradoxical entities

were not found to be conflicting, and Mauss encourages his readers to rethink the relation be-

tween them.12 And even more boldly, Mauss further argues that these dynamics of the gift is

foundational to Indo-European cultures and can be found in old Roman, Germanic, and In-

dian societies.13

8 Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 12–13.39-42. 9 Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 75. 10 John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 14. 11 Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 3. 12 Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 73. 13 Mauss and Halls, The Gift, 47–62; Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 16.

7

2.1.2 After Mauss

In anthropological research of the gift post-Mauss, many discussions have been undertaken

concerning his research. Nevertheless, the basic insights of Mauss have been heavily sup-

ported. Barclay even notes that: “everyone agreed that recipients of gifts are under a strong

(though non-legal) obligation to make some return for a gift – even if only in gratitude.” The

continuous desire to reciprocate is the desire to reproduce social relations and due to its con-

tinuous character, the gift relationships gain a “continuing forward momentum.”14 Contribu-

tors have also nuanced the findings of Mauss, such as Marshal Sahlins who inferred that gift-

giving can take various forms according to the character of the relation. But reciprocity was

everywhere the norm. Thus, he finds, gifts were given discriminately since gift-relations were

strong and important.15

2.1.3 Conclusions

The anthropological studies of the gift in traditional cultures bring important insights for my

purpose. The gift can be a broad category signifying both objects and services. It can also

play significant roles in the entire society as a whole, because of its ability to create strong so-

cial relationships. It was, therefore, important to give discriminately, seeking out worthy re-

cipients who could reciprocate the gift. Furthermore, the descriptions of the gift as both free

and obligatory, disinterested and self-interested should not be posed as mutually exclusive

since traditional cultures did not perceive them as such. Finally, however foreign Westerners

may find it, we should presume that gifts are given with a strong expectation of a return.16

14 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 18. 15 Alan Kirk, “‘Love Your Enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6:27-35),” J. Biblic. Lit.

122.4 (2003): 675–77; Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 19. 16 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 22–23.

8

Having obtained some general insights into the gift by examining anthropological re-

search, I will now investigate how the gift was conceived specifically in the society that

formed the context of Paul.

2.2 The Gift in The Greco-Roman World

In the Greco-Roman World in the early principate, the gift constituted one of the most funda-

mental social structures influencing all layers and areas of society and even the relationship

with the gods.17 For the sake of shortness, I will not go in detail with the specific forms of

gift-giving such as euergetism and patronage but instead focus on general gift-giving (also

termed benefaction) in more symmetrical relations.

2.2.1 The Gift in Symmetrical Relations

When equals bestowed gifts upon each other, an expectation of reciprocity was the

foundation. It was not strict reciprocity, but a rough conscience of who owed what to whom.

Because these exchanges were gifts, they were at one hand free and disinterested, but on the

other hand, people gave gifts to others being interested in entering a binding relation of gift-

giving. Consequently, benefactors would only give a gift to a recipient who was both thankful

and willing to give a return gift. Also, the recipient had to be able to give return gifts. The

poor were thus generally considered unworthy recipients, and many warned against giving to

the poor who could not afford a return.18 Resultingly, gifts had to be given discriminately, so

that one did not waste the gift on an unworthy recipient.19 This is also demonstrated in the

17 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 138–39. 18 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 34. 19 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 24–26.

9

circumstance that gifts per definition were not given to enemies since they were highly un-

likely to make a return.20

When a gift was given, it was expected to be reciprocated with thankfulness as well as

a return-gift. These are often hard to segregate since they are closely connected in action and

in wording (both are described with the same word, χάρις).21 Commonly, equal gift-relations

were described as friendships. And reciprocity was the factor that bound these friendships to-

gether. Even Aristotle’s concept, friendship of virtue, was, though entered because of the per-

son and not his gifts, held together through gifts. The strong expectation of a return could

even be described as debt.22 There was however a clear difference between gifts and trade.

The trade ends with the transaction whereas the gift continues. It invites into a relationship

interested in the person, and not the one gift. A lasting relationship of mutual enrichment and

dependence.23

When investigating gift-giving in the Greco-Roman World, one cannot avoid the

work, De Beneficiis, from between 56-64, of the influential Roman philosopher, Seneca. It is

the most thorough and extensive writing on gift-giving from antiquity.24 Seneca perceives the

gift as a strong tie that unites persons, and constitutes friendships: It is the bond: “from which

friendship springs”.25 In its uniting people, it is also foundational for society as a whole. Re-

sultingly, Seneca finds it important that people continually want to enter such relations. He is

worried that dynamics such as egoism and lack of gratitude may threaten this institution, and

20 Kirk, “‘Love Your Enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6:27-35),” 679–80. 21 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 26–27. 22 Kirk, “‘Love Your Enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6:27-35),” 678. 23 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 31. 24 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 40. 25 Troels Engberg-Petersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s

Χάρις and Its Human Response,” Harv. Theol. Rev. 101.1 (2008): 20–21.

10

he, therefore, seeks to impart ideas for how the common dynamics of gift-giving can be se-

cured.26

In order to maintain the institution of the gift, Seneca deems it necessary to seek out

beneficiaries that are worthy. By worthy Seneca aims solely at the person's moral traits. Ac-

cording to Joubert, Seneca finds that a worthy recipient is: “Somebody who is upright sin-

cere, mindful, grateful, who does not steal, who is not greedily attached to his own, and who

is kind to others”. Seneca, unlike others, thus finds that the most important thing is not

whether the beneficiary is able to make a return because of financial and social capacities, but

that he wants to.27 However, it is not only a question of finding a worthy beneficiary, but also

a right benefactor. Due to the strong relational ties in gift-giving, one should only accept gifts

from benefactors of such a quality that one would want to enter a relationship with him.28

Finally, to avoid that benefactors should feel less motivated to giving due to previous,

negative experiences of gift-giving, Seneca argues that true giving is a virtue in itself. This is

so when a gift is given because of the person that receives, wherefore it is an act of benevo-

lence. Followingly, the true return is gratitude. But this does not annul the material reciproc-

ity (quoted by Joubert): “One repays the true benefit with gratitude, but for the object we still

owe an object.” Reciprocity is thus important both in the material and the psychological

sense. It is the strong bond binding people together in relations and in friendships.29

26 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 41. 27 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 44. 28 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 47. 29 Joubert, Paul as Benefactor, 45–48.

11

2.2.2 Conclusions

From this investigation of gift-giving in the Greco-Roman world, I have found that gift-giv-

ing was thoroughly embedded in these cultures. Gift-giving was a fundamental way of estab-

lishing binding relations of both symmetry and asymmetry. In all cases, the expectation of

reciprocity was the norm. Due to this strong expectation of a return, it was important to find

worthy beneficiaries that would be able to make a return, or at least willing to do so.

3. Words for Gift and Grace

Even though this study wants to focus on the gift as a concept, a study of the Greek and Latin

words for gifts and grace is appropriate since these words will be significant when analysing

Paul and Augustine.

Concerning Greek words, the evaluation will be limited to the words used by Paul in

the text, I will later analyse. The most important word to Paul χάρις was the primary word for

gift in Hellenistic societies. Through a vast study of primary sources, this was demonstrated

by Jim Harrison who concludes that χάρις (the primary word for grace employed by Paul)

was a “leitmotiv” in the Hellenistic reciprocity system.30

χάρις carries several meanings. It can denote the charming quality of a person which

invites a favourable reaction. Further, it can denote the giver having a benevolent disposition

toward someone. In addition to that, it can also denote the gift itself as a favour or benefit

given (this is also the meaning of the cognate word χάρισμα). Finally, it can denote thanks,

gratitude, or a return of gift, as the response to beneficence.31 Denoting the benefit itself is a

30 Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 2. 31 Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and William Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 179–81; Barclay, Paul

and the Gift, 575–78; Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, 72–77.

12

set of nouns related to δίδωμι such as δωρεά and δώρημα which consequently carries the

same meaning as nouns from the χαρ-root.32

The Latin language contains many words for gift and grace. Here, I will only consider

the words contained in the text of Augustine analysed below. Gratia contains the same mean-

ings as χάρις: The charming character of a person which elicits favours, the benevolence of

the giver, the object given as a gift, and gratitude. Other words denoting a gift or benevolence

given are donum and donatio. These are cognates of the verb do denoting the act of giving.33

4. Perfections of Grace

To analyse the concept of grace through its relation to gift-giving, I will employ Barclay’s six

“perfections” of grace. The term “perfection” originates from Kenneth Burke, and it refers to:

“the tendency to draw out a concept to its endpoint or extreme, whether for definitional clar-

ity or rhetorical or ideological advantage.” It can thus be employed on a variety of concepts

for a variety of reasons. It is however not given, how a concept is perfected.34 Concerning

God’s grace, Barclay finds that through the course of history, it has been perfected in (at

least) six different ways.

When employing tools of analysis, it is important to have a critical assessment of

them. Generally, Barclay’s work Paul and the Gift describing the six perfections have been

well received among scholars.35 When employing them, it is important to remember that one

perfection does not by necessity entail another and that each can be perfected to different de-

grees. But this is also the method’s strength since many theological debates concerning grace

32 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 578. 33 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 581–82. 34 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 66–68. 35 See e.g. Paul Foster, “The Concept ‘Gift’ in Paul’s Thought,” Expo. Times 127.3 (2016): 340; F. Gerald

Downing, “Incongruous Conciliation: A Constructive Critique of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift,” J. Study

New Testam. 41.3 (2019): 538; Marcus, Joel, “Barclay’s Gift,” J. Study New Testam. 39.3 (2017): 324.

13

have often been simplified since many overlooks that grace is a polyvalent concept which can

be perfected in several ways. Further, these perfections have their limits when investigating

grace through the concept of gift. For example, they cannot by themselves uncover the spe-

cific content of God’s gift as well as by what means the gift is received. With this in mind,

the six perfections will now be described.

1. Superabundance. This perfection relates to the “size, significance, or permanence

of the gift”. Concerning divine gift-giving, this perfection is almost unavoidable since gods

are commonly expected to give lavishly and abundantly.

2. Singularity. Here the focus lies on the motivation of the giver. This perfection en-

tails that the giver is exclusively good and benevolent when giving, and therefore in its ex-

treme, the giver cannot do anything harmful or judgmental towards possible receivers.

3. Priority. In this perfection, the attention lies on the chronological timing of the gift.

The giver is solely the one to take the initiative of giving, and the gift is not caused by any

previous gift. By giving first, the superiority of the giver is also marked.

4. Incongruity. Here the gift is given indiscriminately without regard the worth of the

recipient. As I have shown, this perfection has commonly not been found desirable in either

archaic or Greco-Roman societies.

5. Efficacy. In this perfection the gift: “fully achieves what it was designed to do.” It

concerns to what degree the gift causes the beneficiary to respond to the gift. In its extreme,

the receiver loses all agency and autonomy and can therefore not avoid responding positively

to it.

6. Non-circularity. This perfection states that a gift is perfect when it does not need to

be reciprocated. The giver seeks to avoid receiving a counter gift and even the gratefulness of

14

the receiver. Discovering reciprocity to be the norm for gift-giving, I have not been able to

identify this perfection in archaic or the Greco-Roman World.36

Having outlined these six perfections of the gift, I will now direct my attention to Paul

and Romans, in order to see how the concept of gift and its perfections may be applicable to

his concept of grace.

5. Paul’s Concept of Grace

When investigating Paul’s concept of grace, Rom 5:12-21 is a key passage. In this pregnant

pericope which according to consensus is a separate unite in the text the divine gift is given

more attention than anywhere else in the letters of Paul.37 Here Paul draws out the implica-

tions of his concept of grace by summing up the history of the world in two humans, Adam

and Jesus Chris. These persons determine the fate of all mankind throughout history.

Because of the sin (ἁμαρτία) of one human (ἄνθρωπος), Adam, sin and death entered

the world and came to all humans (v12).38 For because of their sin, they received the fitting

judgement (κρίμα) of death (vv14.15.18). But in 5:15-21 a movement is made from God’s

judgement to his grace. This is heavily underlined with an overflow of gift-terminology. The

perfection of singularity can thus be excluded since the gift is the solution to the judgement.39

The gift itself is narrowly tied to Jesus being “through the one human, Jesus Christ”

(v15).40 Thus, it is not a general characteristic of God, but a specific event connected to

36 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 70–75. 37 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 495. 38 I here follow most commentators holding that “ἐφ’ ᾧ” marks the cause or reason of why “all sinned.” Cf. John

D. Harvey, Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic,

2017), 138. 39 Engberg-Petersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις

and Its Human Response,” 23–25. 40 Unless anything else is noted, translations of the Greek text are my own.

15

Christ which is the gift. This is demonstrated by the gift being subject to verbs in the aorist

tense which marks a finite extent of time (vv15.21).41

5.1 The Dynamics of Gift-giving

How then is the gift received? This is not explicitly stated in the text, and hence I will here

make a short excursus in order to investigate the character of the gift-giving relation implied

in the text. The key text about faith in Romans is 4:1-25. With the story of Abraham as the

background, Paul raises the question of how χάρις can be received. To suggestions are made:

It is either through works (ἔργα) as payment, or is it through faith (πίστις) as a gift. What Paul

outlines here, is, to phrase it in Maussian terms, a war of regimes. Does χάρις belong to the

regime of trade, or does it belong to the regime of the gift? The conclusion for Paul is clear.

χάρις is not paid contractually as salary for works, it belongs exclusively within the relational

sphere of gift-giving: “Therefore it is by faith (πίστις), so that it may be according to grace

(χάρις)” (v16).

Consequently, one can perceive the dynamics of gift-giving as: 1) God establishes the

gift in the Christ-event. 2) The Jesus-believer responds with faith. 3) The believer receives

righteousness concomitantly with their faith (vv22-24).42

Paul’s emphasis on the gift being received through faith and not as payment for works

can be interpreted to support non-circularity. However, this does not fit the expectation from

the historical study of gift-giving that a gift elicits reciprocation. But if I investigate how the

word πίστις was employed in the Greco-Roman world this issue may be solved. According to

Teresa Morgan, the central meaning of πίστις (and the Latin equivalent, fides) in the Greco-

41 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 496. 42 Engberg-Petersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις

and Its Human Response,” 30–31.

16

Roman world was “trust.”43 Trust between persons was foundational for the formation of re-

lationships and society.44 In the case of a divine trust-relation, she finds that the “Attitude”

model of William Sessions is apt. In this model: “S has faith towards X if S’s whole life is

oriented to X and S interprets the world in light of his or her relationship with X.”45

For Paul, the reason for trusting God is the Christ-event. Since God was willing to let

his own son die for the sake of the humans, there are good reasons to trust that he wants the

best for them and that he loves them (8:32; 5:8). The pericope mentions those who receive (οἱ

λαμβάνοντες) the gift of righteousness (v17). This receiving is the act of responding to the

Christ-event with trust and faith. But this receiving involves a changed life for the believers,

as would be expected from the “Attitude” model. Those who receive will “reign (βασιλεύω)

in life” (v17) which I with Jewett take to refer to both present and eschatological reality.46

This ability to reign is enabled by grace which in v21 is said to reign, whereby it replaces the

reign of sin. Thus, the reign of grace does not entail efficacy since it’s reigning enables the

believers to reign themselves, thus assigning agency to the believer. Furthermore, the agency

of believers is implied when Paul later encourages gentile believers to cling to God in order

that they may “remain with his kindness” lest they will be “cut off” (11:22).

The theme of obedience is further developed in 6:1-23 where the believer is said to be

under grace (v14). This new allegiance leads to a changed life (v13). Consequently, believers

are exhorted not to let sin reign over them since they are now “under grace” (v14). Paul even

describes the relation in terms of slavery (vv16-23). But at the same time, he underlines that

the obedience must be “from the heart” and thus willingly (v17). The image of slavery must

43 Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early

Churches, First edition. (Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2015), 5-7. 44 Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, 15. 45 Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, 25. 46 Robert Jewett, Roy David Kotansky, and Eldon Jay Epp, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia--a Critical and

Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 384.

17

thus be read together with Paul’s direct opposition to a relation of slavery (8:15). The believ-

ers are fundamentally identified as God’s children (8:16), and because of the love that God

has shown them in the Christ-event, they respond by lowing him (8:28).47

Consequently, God’s grace is received as a gift through faith. A faith that implies a

changed way of life. Thus, grace entails a response that is both voluntary and obliged. The

perfection of non-circularity can thus be excluded since a response is expected. A relational

response of trust, obedience, and love.

5.2 How Grace is Perfected

In 5:12-21 a great contrast between Adam and Christ is underlined. They are compared eight

times. Employing a homoeoteleuton with -μα endings, words related to each person are com-

pared such as παράπτωμα and χάρισμα (trespass and gift, v15) and κατάκριμα and δικαίωμα

(condemnation and justification, v17).48 The trespass of Adam leads to judgement, condem-

nation, death, and the reign of sin. The gift leads to justification, life, and the reign of grace

(vv16.21).49 And even more so, Paul writes that judgement originated from Adam’s one sin,

but the gift originated from the trespasses of the many.50 The gift was caused to come be-

cause of the trespasses of humanity, and the surprising result is that: “Where sin increased,

grace superabounded (ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν) (v20)!”

Superabundance is evidently present. Both in comparisons and in the words πάντες

and πολλοὶ, but also in the language of abundance (περισσεύω), and especially underlined in

47 Engberg-Petersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις

and Its Human Response,” 38–39. 48 Jewett, Kotansky, and Epp, Romans, 370. 49 Jewett, Kotansky, and Epp, Romans, 382. 50 Sin is implicit in the phrase “ἐξ ἑνὸς” since it is parallel with “πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων”. Cf. Harvey, Romans,

141.

18

using the rare word ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν.51 Verse 20, however, reveals that superabundance is,

as Barclay phrases it: “in service of another perfection” since “God’s grace through Christ” is

marked as extravagant precisely in its incongruence with the human condition.”52

The incongruence of the gift is evident all the way through the pericope. When focus-

ing on Adam, the ancestor of all humans, it is underlined that all men are equal. “all sinned”

because of Adam, and are thus unworthy (v12). In fact, Paul underlines in the preceding pe-

ricope (5:1-11) that all believers were, not just sinners (v8), but enemies of God (v10),

thereby marking their total lack of worth.

Paul does not seek to annihilate the advantage of the Jews: That they had the law en-

trusted (3:1-2). But the law did not prevent the Jews from becoming unworthy by sinning. In-

stead, it ensured that their sin was reckoned (5:13), and even more so; Paul finds that the law

was given to increase sin: “But the law came in order to increase the trespass.” (5:20). This

statement must have been very provocative to any Jew in Paul’s day. Prominent scholars such

as E. P. Sanders and D. G. Dunn have each in their own way demonstrated how the law

played a significantly positive role in the Judaism of Paul’s day.53 According to Sanders,

Jews did not hold that they could earn grace through obedience of the law. Instead, law-obe-

dience demonstrated that they had it.54 Consequently, Paul is here taking something perceived

as an entrusted privilege and shows that instead of demonstrating that the Jews are worthy re-

cipients of grace, it de facto decreased their worth. Due to sin, the law could not create obedi-

ence (cf. 7:5.9.11), and thereby the law instead made sin (and thus the unworthiness) of the

Jews increase (5:20). The law made the Jews all the more in need of an incongruential gift.

51 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 494. 52 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 495. 53 Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, 67.92. 54 Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, 67.

19

5.3 Conclusions

Paul perfects the gift emphatically with superabundance and incongruity. Especially the latter

is significant since gifts in the Greco-Roman world were expected to be discriminating. Fur-

ther, this emphasis of the incongruence of the gift is what enables Paul to preach the gospel of

grace to Gentiles (1:1.5) since they, just as the Jews can receive the gift through faith despite

not being worthy thereof (see e.g. 11:32). God’s motivation for freely giving the gift of the

Christ-event to the unworthy humans is found in an inner motivation: Love (5:8).55 Being at

the same time free and obliged, gifts establish reciprocal relations and so also in Romans. The

gift received through faith is not non-circular. It establishes a relation of trust, obedience, and

love.

Implied in the perfection of incongruity, but not explicitly stated, is the perfection of

priority; God alone initiated the gift relation with the sinful humans who did not seek him.56

Due to statements of judgement, the gift is not perfected with singularity. Efficacy is also pre-

cluded since grace by its reign frees the believer from being under the reign of sin, thereby

enabling the agency of the believer.

Paul’s conception of grace has been the centre around which all subsequent debates

and interpretation of grace has revolved. Of all interpreters of Paul, no one has given more

attention to grace than Augustine of Hippo to whom I now will turn.57

55 Engberg-Petersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις

and Its Human Response,” 27. 56 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 556. 57 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 85.

20

6. Augustine’s Concept of Grace

In the middle of the 390s, Augustine of Hippo gained an increased interest in the works of

Paul. This made him engage with Romans in several works of this period.

Augustine’s interest in Romans was affected by his past. Firstly, he notes that it was

because he ‘took up and read’ a passage from Romans (13:13-14) that he converted in 386.58

Earlier, he had been a Manichean. A Christian sect who relied on Paul in e.g. rejecting the

Old Testament law and propagating dualism and determinism. After his conversion, Augus-

tine consequently employed Paul and Romans to reject Manicheism (especially in his works

of the late 380s).59 Until the mid-390s this polemical attitude continued to affect his mainte-

nance of some free will.60

In 394/95 he wrote The Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans which I will

study. It is a reworked transcript of answers he had given to fellow clergymen in conversa-

tions about Romans.61 Especially, I will focus on how gift-giving is conceptualised in 27-30.

6.1 The Personas of Adam and Christ

When Augustine comments on Rom 5:12-21 he, as Paul, perceives Adam and Christ as the

key figures of history. They are the two personas whose actions determine the world’s history

and the actions and fates of all humans. To understand this, I will make a brief excursus on

58 According to Confessions. Cf. Carol Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology: An Argument for Con-

tinuity (Oxford; New York: Oxford University, 2006), 117. 59 Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 121. 60 Paula Fredriksen Landes, “Introduction,” in Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Ro-

mans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Texts and Translations, Early Christian Literature

Series 23. 6 (Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1982), 9; Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 129. 61 Fredriksen Landes, “Introduction,” 9.

21

Augustine’s concept: “the four stages of man” (30:3).62 They describe both the history of the

world as well as the religious development of individuals.63

In the first stage, ante legem (before the law), because of Adam, humans sin resulting

in the judgement of death (46:7). They do so unconsciously by hedonistically following their

fleshly concupiscence (desires) (v13-18:3). When the law is given in the second stage, sub

lege (under the law), it makes humans aware of their sin (27-28:3). However, though they

want to remove the sin that they are now aware of, the law does not enable them to “take

away sin” (ibid.) since “the fruit of a prohibited desire is sweeter” (note here the parallel to

the sin of Adam) (39:1). The first two stages thus mark how humans perform Adam’s story as

a role. He is the plot of every human’s life (32-34:3).64

The only way to resolve the tension of stage two is by entering the third stage, sub

gratia (under grace). Here, Christ gives grace, by which sins are forgiven (29:4-6). By this

grace, the believer is now able to overcome sin, though concupiscence from Adam remains in

their mortal body (vv7-10). The fourth stage, in pace (in peace), is marked by the believer

resurrecting like Christ. Thus, one fully puts on the persona of Christ. Concupiscence is now

fully absent since the mortal body of Adam is no longer present (vv10-12).

6.2 The Content of the Gift

What is the content of the gift in Propositions? The gift (donatio)65 gives “eternal life” and

leads to “justification” and “forgiveness” which are given or provided by Jesus Christ. It thus

62 I follow Landes’ Latin text. Aurelius Augustinus, Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. Paula Fredriksen Landes, Texts and

Translations, Early Christian Literature Series 23. 6 (Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1982). 63 Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 30. 64 Benjamin Myers, “Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8: A Tale of Two Gardens: Augus-

tine’s Narrative Interpretation of Romans 5,” in Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8, ed.

Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013), 43. 65 Used almost synonymously with gratia (grace).

22

reverses the statement of judgment and death which the sin of Adam and subsequent human-

ity resulted in (29:4-6). Further, it needs mention that the Spirit is the most frequently men-

tioned content of the gift in Propositions (26:1; 60:5-6.10; 61:5).66 The Spirit is identified as

being “the love of God” which is “poured into our hearts” and thus enables the believer to

love and do good works (60:5).

6.3 How Grace is Perfected

In the passage of 27-30, the Adam-Christ dichotomy is employed to describe the perfection

of superabundance. Because of Adam, death reigns temporarily, but, contrasting this, grace

abounds (abundat) in giving life that lasts eternally (29:4). Also, whereas the transgression of

one man led to the judgement of death for many, the gift given by Christ because of many

sins led to eternal life which also constitutes a contrast (ibid.). Augustine further develops this

theme by stating that because sin abounded (abundavit, perfect tense) (30:3), the forgiveness

of the many sins made grace superabound (superabundasse) (31:1). Superabundance is, how-

ever, not the primary perfection of grace, it is in service of another: Incongruity.

The many sinners are qua their many sins not fitting recipients of God’s gift. Thus,

superabundance underlines the incongruity of grace. Incongruence is also clear from the four

stages. Especially stage two where Augustine states that the law was not given to remove sin,

but to make it visible (27-28:2). It was not given to make the recipients worthy (“justify

themselves”). It rather demonstrated the power sin had over them and made the concupis-

cence even stronger (30:2-3). Thus, it demonstrated and increased their incongruence with the

gift.

66 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 87.

23

An important and perhaps more known perfection of Augustine is that of efficacy. Be-

cause of its centrality in Propositions, I will now unfold it, even though it is not developed in

my specific passage. As I have already found, the ability to love and even the actions of love

themselves is the effect of the Spirit which the believer receives as a gracious gift. God is the

agent behind all good works of the believer making them all gifts (21:2; 26). This must be

considered when reading that Augustine states that the believer will eventually merit eternal

life (60:14-15). This merit is gained purely through efficacious grace (62:2.9.13). This is par-

amount to Augustine since this secures that the believer cannot take pride in his works (60:6).

For pride is the source of all sin (4:2).67

From this arises a, to Augustine, troubling question: The sinner is desperately capti-

vated in the second state, and can only be freed by God’s intervention.68 Then, why is it that

only Jacob, and not Esau, is elected to receive this efficacious grace (60:1)? Since: “no choice

can be made between completely equal things.” (60:8). There must be some basis for God’s

choice. The solution is faith.

According to Morgan, Augustine’s concept of faith is concerns fides qua creditur and

fides quae creditur. Faith is an act located in the believer (fides qua) who believes something

(a proposition) to be true (fides quae).69 This conception, I find, is evident throughout Propo-

sitions, as for example when Augustine writes of faith “by which” (qua) an object (e.g.

“deo”) is believed (72:3; 81:2). Thus, his focus is on subject and object respectively and not

the shared relationship between the two.70 This faith is what Augustine employs to ensure

67 Myers, “Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8: A Tale of Two Gardens: Augustine’s Nar-

rative Interpretation of Romans 5,” 44. 68 William S. Babcock and Philosophy Documentation Center, “Augustine’s Interpretation of Romans: (A.D.

394—396),” Augustin. Stud. 10 (1979): 361. 69 Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, 11–12. 70 Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, 28.

24

that both man’s free will (62:13) and God’s justice (61:1) is maintained in the election which

he wished to uphold against Manicheism.71

Faith is thus the reason why God gives the grace that transfers sinners from the sec-

ond to the third state. This faith is an act of free will (60:7), and God foreknows before birth

who will freely believe him (60:1.4). Consequently, God’s election is temporally prior to

faith, but not logically (55:5; 60:11).72 Faith is also sustained through the will (60:15), but

Augustine seems to holds that after the initiating moment of faith, free will is “helped” by

God, leaving only an initial moment of autonomous free-will to the believer (62:15). An init-

ium fidei.73 Because of faith, Augustine can maintain that God does not elect on the basis of

works (60:9). However, even though good works are God’s actions, he also describes the init-

ium fidei as a work of “ours” (nostrum) (60:12). Faith thereby becomes the initiating merit by

which God can elect.74

6.4 Conclusions

In Propositions, and especially in chapter 27-30, grace is perfected with superabundance.

This perfection is, however, in service of another: Incongruence. Due to the importance of

judgment in Augustine’s thought, singularity is naturally absent. Instead, the judgment also

serves to underline incongruence since grace is given to sinners deserving judgement.75 The

four stages of man which are integral to Augustine’s interpretation of Romans also highlights

the unworthiness of all humans to receive the gift. Incongruence is thus key to Augustine’s

concept of grace.

71 Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 135–36. 72 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 88. 73 Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 137. 74 Harrison, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, 139. 75 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 85.

25

Grace is further perfected with priority in a temporal sense. And clearly so: It is even

before birth. It is though not logically prior to faith. Also, priority is implicit in the incongru-

ence of grace.

Non-circularity is absent due to reciprocity. The believer responds to grace by doing

good works which will merit salvation. This must, however, be read in light of efficacy.

Every good work is because of God. Initium fidei is the only exception. But this initium fidei

seems misplaced. It is a synthetical reading of Paul and a misfit to the larger scheme of Au-

gustine’s theology which emphasises efficacy. Therefore, it was a natural movement when

Augustine, in 396, in Ad Simplicianum concluded that even faith is God’s work and gift, thus

finally rejecting initium fidei. Humans have nothing to boast of before God. Everything is a

gift from him.76

7. Comparing Theologians of Grace

Our analysis has demonstrated that both Paul and Augustine are theologians of grace. God’s

gracious gift is key to their theologies. This is evident in both of them insisting that God’s

grace is not a merit but a gift. Paul consistently describes God’s salvation within the regime

of the gift being both interested and disinterested. This is not so with Augustine. To him, God

gives grace as a gift. But afterwards, grace makes the believer do good works so that the be-

liever can merit salvation. Thus, he intermingles the sphere of contracts and salary with the

sphere of relations and gift-giving resulting in a hybrid between gift and contract. For Paul,

God’s giving of grace instead inaugurates a relation of mutual gift-giving; A relation where

the believer does not earn salvation but receives it as a gift because of his participation in this

relation. Paul thus remains distinctively inside the sphere of gift-giving, whereas Augustine is

76 Babcock and Philosophy Documentation Center, “Augustine’s Interpretation of Romans,” 65–66.

26

less consistent. He does hold that God’s grace elicits the believer to love God which is, of

course, a relational term. But technically, it is not through this relation that the believer is

saved, but through the merits that it produces.

However, despite the differences between the two, Augustine does, in the end, reach

the same conclusion as Paul. The good works meriting salvation are solely gifts of God. Sal-

vation is therefore ultimately God’s gift.

7.1 How Grace is Received

Another possible comparison is the channel through which the gift is received. Paul and Au-

gustine agree that this channel is faith. For Paul, faith signifies a relation of trust. God acts

trust-evoking to which the believer responds with a faith that has consequences for all of his

life. For Augustine, faith rather signifies the choice of the believer. A cognitive and emo-

tional decision of the believer to believe in God and thereby receive God’s gift. After this fol-

lows the relation of love inasmuch God creates it in the believer. There is thus a difference in

the exact operation of faith, but for both, faith is the act of the believer which determines if a

person will move from being under sin like Adam, or will receive God’s gift through Christ

and be under grace.

7.2 Perfections of Grace

Paul and Augustine are closely related in their approach to five of the six perfections. They

both find that grace is superabundantly given to sinners which underlines incongruity. Be-

cause God judges sinners to death, grace is not singular, but underlined by its contrast to this

judgment. Neither of them finds that grace is non-circular. Augustine finds that grace leads to

actions that earn salvation, and Paul finds that grace entails a new allegiance and therefore a

new lifestyle. Priority is significant to both writers; Primarily by being implicit in incongru-

ence. A perfection that is key to both, when the great story of all mankind, summarised in

27

Adam and Christ, is to be told. This story tells how every human with Adam was under the

dominion of sin being completely unworthy. Only through the incongruous grace, they are

freed to life.

The greatest difference between the two lies in their view of efficacy. Paul does not

perfect it by holding that grace by its reign assigns agency to the believer, and by holding that

apostasy is possible. For Augustine, on the other hand, this perfection is pivotal. This is so

because eternal life is earned through merit. Therefore, grace has to be efficacious so that fi-

nal salvation can remain a gift. His mixing of regimes forces him to perfect grace this way.

Since Paul does not find that salvation is merited in any way, it is not necessary for him to do

so.

8. Conclusion: A Tale of Two Gardens

Augustine’s engagements with Romans lead him to writing Confession, in 397. Here, he de-

scribes two main events in his journey towards the Christian faith. As young, he sinned by

stealing fruit from a tree in a garden which he describes through the trope of Adam’s fall in

the garden of Eden.77 As an adult, he wanted to believe but lacked the will to do so. There-

fore, he was tormented with agony which he describes through the trope of Christ’s agony in

Getsemane. The second garden. The solution to his agony came when he read to: “(…) put on

the Lord Jesus Christ (…)” (Rom 13:13-14) which gave him the strength to believe. This

event, Augustine interpreted as God’s intervention. He was saved by God who as a gift gave

him the strength to put on the persona of Christ.78

77 Myers, “Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8: A Tale of Two Gardens: Augustine’s Nar-

rative Interpretation of Romans 5,” 49–50. 78 Myers, “Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8: A Tale of Two Gardens: Augustine’s Nar-

rative Interpretation of Romans 5,” 51–53.

28

Through Paul, Augustine came to perceive Christ and Adam as the two personas

through whom the fate of every human is determined. Including Augustine himself. What

Paul, and Augustine through him, found is that all of humanity with Adam is under the reign

of sin. Every human is unworthy in God’s view. Not even the Jews who had God’s law were

worthy recipients since the law de facto decreased their worth.

In the Greco-Roman World, the natural conclusion would thus be that no one could

ever receive a gift from God. Such would be contrary to all conceptions of gift-giving. How-

ever, Paul and Augustine surprisingly find that God gives his grace as a gift exactly to those

who are unworthy. It is given with abundance before they have given anything to him.

This gift is provided by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. And through him, all who re-

ceive the gift through faith will not only receive the benefits of the gift; They will also enter a

strong relationship with the one who gives.

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustinus, Aurelius. Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans,

Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Paula Fredriksen

Landes. Texts and Translations, Early Christian Literature Series 23. 6. Chico, Calif:

Scholars Press, 1982.

Babcock, William S., and Philosophy Documentation Center. “Augustine’s Interpretation of

Romans: (A.D. 394—396).” Augustin. Stud. 10 (1979): 55–74.

Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Com-

pany, 2015.

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, and William Arndt. A Greek-English Lexicon of the

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2000.

Downing, F. Gerald. “Incongruous Conciliation: A Constructive Critique of John Barclay’s

Paul and the Gift.” J. Study New Testam. 41.3 (2019): 384–402.

Engberg-Petersen, Troels. “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on

the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response.” Harv. Theol. Rev. 101.1 (2008):

15–44.

Foster, Paul. “The Concept ‘Gift’ in Paul’s Thought.” Expo. Times 127.3 (2016): 338–40.

Fredriksen Landes, Paula. “Introduction.” Page 16 in Augustine on Romans: Propositions

from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Ro-

mans. Texts and Translations, Early Christian Literature Series 23. 6. Chico, Calif:

Scholars Press, 1982.

Harrison, Carol. Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology: An Argument for Continuity. Ox-

ford; New York: Oxford University, 2006.

Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. Wissenschaft-

liche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Hart, Keith. “Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole. A Review Essay.” Comp. Stud. Soc.

Hist. 49.2 (2007): 473–85.

Harvey, John D. Romans. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville, Tennes-

see: B & H Academic, 2017.

30

Jewett, Robert, Roy David Kotansky, and Eldon Jay Epp. Romans: A Commentary. Herme-

neia--a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

2007.

Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in

Paul’s Collection. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 124.

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

Kirk, Alan. “‘Love Your Enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6:27-

35).” J. Biblic. Lit. 122.4 (2003): 667.

Marcus, Joel. “Barclay’s Gift.” J. Study New Testam. 39.3 (2017): 324–30.

Mauss, Marcel, and W. D. Halls. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic

Societies. [2.] repr. London: Routledge, 1996.

Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Em-

pire and Early Churches. First edition. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2015.

Myers, Benjamin. “Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8: A Tale of Two

Gardens: Augustine’s Narrative Interpretation of Romans 5.” Apocalyptic Paul: Cos-

mos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8. Edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Waco: Bay-

lor University Press, 2013.

Wright, N. T. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. London:

SPCK, 2015.

“Gift | Definition of Gift by Lexico.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, n.d. https://www.lex-

ico.com/en/definition/gift.