Grace and the Gift of Humility in Philippians

    “I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls,” (Matt 11.29). The humility of our Lord exhibited here is likely one of the most appealing and challenging of his traits. That it is appealing is of course fairly evident; generally a person who expresses humility today is thought to be warm, friendly, and inviting. But the challenge persists, because we know that we have been called (not 10 words prior) to follow in this way, and the way of humility is invariably the way of the cross. What we need, then, is the grace of God in us “both to will and to work” (Phil 2.13) toward this way — which is indeed what we receive in Christ: “thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!” (2 Cor 9.15).

    What follows will attempt an exploration of the theme of grace and gift in Philippians and its application in ministry. As we investigate this theme biblically, historically, and theologically, we will see that in Philippians Paul repeatedly highlights one key implication of the Christ-gift — humility — as an essential trait that should characterize the recipients of this transformative gift.

    A quick scan of Paul’s letter to the Philippians reveals frequent talk of “grace” (χάρις) and “gift” (as well as their conceptual equivalents), and this ubiquity extends into the rest of the New Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature. But as John Barclay reminds us, we do well to ask, “if ‘grace’ is everywhere…is it everywhere the same?” (Barclay 2015, 2). In his study, Barclay explores the nature of ‘gift’ in Paul’s letters, and develops a taxonomy of ‘perfections’ of grace/gift language — six ways of taking the concept to its most intense logical conclusion. Throughout the history of New Testament interpretation these perfections have each found proponents who elevate one or a group of perfections above others (or to the exclusion of others). This history leads Barclay to caution that “to perfect one facet of gift-giving does not imply the perfection of any or all of the others” (Barclay 2015, 75). With this in mind, we note that a few of these perfections will prove most salient to our purposes in addressing χάρις in Philippians, namely priority, efficacy, and incongruity. These perfections occur in the context of the gift’s circularity — it anticipates and obliges reciprocation — which will also be significant for the task at hand.

 

i.    Grace, reciprocity, and perfections of the gift in Philippians ­

            Paul opens the letter with his characteristic greeting: “Grace (χάρις) to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Phil 1.2). From here flow several more terms from the χαρ-stem in chapter 1: εὐχαριστῶ (1.3), χάριτος (1.7), χαίρω (1.18), χαρὰν (1.25), ἐχαρίσθη (1.29). These terms vary rather widely in their semantic range, but we do well to note that each term derived from the χαρ-stem relates in some way to the conceptual world of the gift. Each term carries with it a nuance relating to giving or receiving a gift, or the corresponding social or emotional response, or the character of the relationship thus created or sustained. Words in this grouping typically function qualitatively: they reveal the spirit of the gift (Barclay 2015, 576ff). These first instances in chapter 1 begin to reveal the contours of Paul’s understanding of redeemed humanity’s relation to God the giver of life. Indeed, God has given himself in Christ, and this quintessential gift provides a range of possible implications socially, ethically, and theologically, several of which we will address below. 

Toward the end of the letter, the gift language becomes more explicit, even as it changes vocabulary from the χαρ- word group to words related to δίδωμι, which deal more directly with the gift itself. Paul begins to speak of the unique partnership he has with the Philippians, characterized by a pattern of giving (δόσεως) and receiving (λήμψεως) (4.15). Paul makes clear that his partnership with them is not purely transactional: he seeks not the gift (δόμα) itself, but the fruit (καρπόν) which overflows in abundance to their credit (4.17). Of course, Paul is not a disinterested party — he is the gladhearted recipient of the Philippians’ beneficence — but Paul’s language of ‘partnership’ (ἐκοινώνησεν, a verb form of κοινωνία) gives us an idea of the structured mutuality of the relationship created by “giving and receiving.” In neither Paul’s nor the Philippians’ case was it expected that a gift would not be reciprocated in some way, because the very nature of κοινωνία demands reciprocity. 

The prevalence of the gift economy in the ancient world (see section ii) meant that the Philippians would likely have been familiar with this arrangement; but Paul draws special attention to the way in which gift-giving is transformed in light of the Christ-event. It is no longer simply “a pragmatic arrangement or a political device,” it is “a means of entering into the generosity and self-giving love of God,” (Barclay 2018, 22). This has a few key implicatures: first, it fosters humility in imitation of Christ’s self-emptying (Phil 2.6-8). I can no longer present myself as one who has no need; divine grace means that I am just as much in need as I am able to provide for the needs of others (in whatever temporal sequence that manifests). Second, the mutuality established by reciprocal κοινωνία imbues immense dignity to those ‘lesser’ members who in other contexts might be considered needy or less mature. To the contrary, by virtue of their inclusion in the people of God they have much to give, even as they indeed need others to provide. Likewise, their agency as renewed humans is affirmed through their participation in this economy of grace. Finally, the atmosphere of reciprocity injects contentment into a community, akin to what Paul expresses in Phil 4.10-20. Because God meets our needs through one another, we trust that in our times of scarcity or abundance the Lord is actively working for our benefit through our sisters and brothers. We will return to these themes and address them in greater depth shortly. 

            Philippians also evinces a few of Barclay’s categories for the gift’s perfections. Paul’s ‘thankless thanks’ highlights the divine priority of the gift. David Briones has developed fresh application of a ‘brokerage’ model for understanding Paul and the Philippians’ mutual κοινωνία with God, in which the human participants mediate the gifts whose “ultimate source” is God (Briones, 58). Paul’s refusal to directly thank the Philippians for their generosity points up his concern to remind them of the gift’s divine origin. Barclay’s assessment is helpful here, drawing on conclusions from Phil 2.6-8: “the ultimate connection between divine grace and human generosity is mutual participation: Christ’s participation in the human condition enables, indeed creates, our participation in Christ and in the gift-momentum of his grace,” (Barclay 2018, 17). For Paul, God’s grace precedes and accompanies human generosity and κοινωνία.

            Divine grace also establishes and enables human generosity and κοινωνία. Earlier in the letter Paul affirms the efficacy of God’s gift, stating that it is God who enables us to will and to work for his pleasure (Phil 2.13) — an act that is part and parcel of human fellowship with God. In other words, the priority of God’s gift does not entail its non-circularity (Barclay 2015, 74). In Briones’ brokerage scheme, the very grace given by an uncreated party and mediated by the two created parties is what enables the latter to live in mutual reciprocity and generosity. “Grace cascades from God to the patron, flows in, through and among participants ‘in Christ’, and eventually returns back as ευχαριστία to God, the supreme giver” (Briones, 64). God’s grace is efficacious: reception of the gift encourages and enables reciprocity and establishes and energizes the unity of the recipients with one another and with the Giver.  

            Further uniting the recipients of God’s grace to one another is their shared unworthiness of the gift; indeed, the incongruityof the gift with respect to its targeted recipient is essential to Paul’s theology of grace. More will be said on this below, but for now we note that it is precisely those attributes that made Paul worthy according to the flesh which proved how incongruous God’s gift was (cf. Phil 3.4-11). In a paradoxical way, Paul’s ostensive worthiness was more of an obstacle to the gift of God than a prerequisite; more lowly persons — despite their social ostracism, disregard, or even moral shortcomings — proved more “worthy” of God’s incongruous gift.

 

ii.   Humility and the problem of incongruity 

            Drawing together the efforts of sociologists, anthropologists, and historians, in addition to his own theological and exegetical contributions, Barclay’s work helps us understand the prevalence and social significance of gifts in the ancient world. It is no overstatement to suggest that the so-called ‘gift economy’ was the primary means of building and sustaining relationships in antiquity and contributed a great deal to social cohesion (Barclay 2015, 27ff). There were important limitations to this economy, however. One of the more essential limitations was the fittingness of the recipient of a gift; when considering to whom one will give, several calculations can be made of the ‘worthiness’ (ἄξιος) of a candidate. In many cases, a potential recipient’s capacity for reciprocity was the metric of such worthiness, but benevolence on the part of the giver might incline them to give even to those whose reciprocating gifts might not quite match. Nevertheless, what was mostly unheard of was that one would give not only to the poor (qua poor) but to the wicked (though these were often the same demographic in the minds of benefactors) (Barclay 2015, 34). To give in this manner would be to incur the humiliating judgment of one’s peers, to be sure, but would also seem to serve no purpose other than to impoverish the giver, who could expect no return for such a wildly incongruous gift.

            It is at this point where the disparity between common social practice and Paul’s letter to the Philippians comes into sharpest relief. For Paul, it is axiomatic that God gives to the ungodly (cf. Rom 4.5ff) — a claim that is already itself controversial. But more than that, the letter to the Philippian church finds Paul articulating a theology of gift whereby recipients are enabled by God’s gift to “will and to work” (Phil 2.13) in a manner reflective of God himself, who in Christ humbles himself to the point of shameful crucifixion (2.5-8). Paul’s words earlier in the letter are especially striking: the gift that has been given (ἐχαρίσθη) to the Philippians is for them “not only to believe (πιστεύειν) in him but also to suffer (πάσχειν)” for the sake of Christ Jesus (1.29). The Christ-gift, then, is doubly subversive: it is not only given to the unworthy but is also, as it were, humiliating. Commenting on 2 Cor 8:9, Barclay relates the passage to Phil 2.6 and argues that “if we are enriched, it is not so we might have much (material or spiritual) but so we might give much (or have much by giving),” (Barclay 2018, 17). Grace and humility coinhere — to receive a gift requires at some level a basic recognition of lack, and to give back means at the very least not thinking of oneself as above the social obligation of reciprocity. The incongruity of the gift implies that recipients are, by all relevant metrics, unworthy. And yet, the humble character of the Christ-gift (cf. Phil 2.6-11) renders this incongruity paradoxically fitting, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1: “God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” What is more, the efficacy of the gift suggests that these unworthy recipients are empowered by grace to be conformed to the cruciform pattern of life in Christ. 

            These perfections of the gift — priority, efficacy, and incongruity — together with the manner in which the gift is reciprocated — brokerage of divine grace through mutual partnership and self-giving —  suggest that humility (and its constellation of interrelated concepts such as self-denial, sacrificial love, generosity, and so forth) stands central to Paul’s understanding of the transformation generated by God’s gift of himself in Christ. This Gift, given prior to any warrant and without respect to the ‘worth’ of the recipient, effects a gradual reconstitution of the self whereby one is reoriented: turned from selfish ambition outward to God and to neighbor in cruciform love. 

Bibliography

 

Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. 

———. “Paul, Reciprocity, and Giving with the Poor,” in Practicing with Paul: Reflections on Paul and Practices of Ministry in Honor of Susan G. Eastman, ed. Presian R. Burroughs, 15-29. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018.

———. “Security and Self-Sufficiency: A Comparison of Paul and Epictetus.” Ex Auditu 24 (2008): 60–72.

 

Briones, David. “Paul’s Intentional ‘Thankless Thanks’ in Philippians 4.10–20.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (2011): 47–69. 

 

Eastman, Susan G. “Imitating Christ Imitating Us: Paul’s Educational Project in Philippians,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, eds. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, A. Katherine Grieb, 427-451. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

 

Gorman, Michael J. “Being ‘In Christ’ Today: Paul’s Letter to the Contemporary Church in North America.” Canadian Theological Review 4 (2015): 69–85.