1.   Introduction

Grace is foundational and central to Christian faith and life, and grace is found throughout Old and New Testaments alike.[1] In Ephesians alone, the apostle Paul describes how believers are in God’s family and are forgiven through Christ’s blood-purchase both “toward the praise of God’s glorious grace” and “according to the riches of God’s lavish grace” (Eph 1:6–7). Indeed, God is full of immeasurable riches of grace in kindness toward us in Christ (2:7), so we are “saved by grace” (2:8a). And even though this salvation is “through faith,” which is personal and individual, this faith and salvation are “not of ourselves” but “the gift of God” (2:8bc). Grace has been central to many famous debates throughout church history, from the early church (Augustine vs. Pelagius) to the Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas vs. William of Ockham) to Christianity in modernity (Schleiermacher vs. Barth) to our post-[everything] present.[2]

But what is grace, exactly? The most common definitions of “grace” in the Western evangelical church revolve around the idea of a gift that is unmerited, free favor, or unmerited benevolence.[3] A kids song says that “mercy is / when God does not / give us what we deserve; grace is / when God gives us / the things we don’t deserve.” And as Philip Wijaya summarizes, “In His mercy, God does not give us punishment we deserve, namely hell; while in His grace, God gives us the gift we do not deserve, namely heaven.”[4] The biblical data is more complex and overlapping than that,[5] but there is a nugget of truth to that pattern. Grace does tend to function in the realm of gift—and good gift at that.[6]

This common definition is merely assumed in various biblical theologies, in which an actual definition of grace is sometimes difficult to find.[7] But in various doctrinal or systematic theologies, a definition tends to be more forthcoming.

John Piper describes two basic complexities of the apostle Paul’s uses of “grace” in laymen terms like this:

[It has a] simple definition of undeserved favor . . . That’s a good definition . . . [T]he word also embraces the encouraging truth . . . that this favor overflows in powerful, practical helpfulness from God in your daily life where you most need it. That help is also called “grace” because it’s free and it’s undeserved.[8]

David deSilva has observed the same two dimensions:

[W]e should return frequently to meditate upon the immensity of God’s favor both in terms of his general benefactions (life, salvation, a future of hope) as well as in terms of his personal patronage, the ways in which his favor has entered into our own lives at our points of need.[9]

Westerners usually mean that grace is not only unearned in a unilateral sense, but also free from any “strings attached,” so to speak. No sort of pay-it-back mindset is allowed with this gift of grace. Nor is any sort of obliged reciprocal kindness.

In China, Japan, and Korea—indeed, most parts of Asia—Christians do not view gift and reciprocity in the same way. Many see a form of relational reciprocity inherent in grace. Is this “Eastern way” inherently antithetical to biblical grace, or has the “Western way” missed something—or both? What is more, recent insights in NT studies suggest that some form of reciprocity was also present in various aspects or outworkings of “grace” and “gift” in the Greco-Roman era broadly and among NT authors, not least Paul.[10]

This article seeks to reconsider how we think and talk about grace as God’s “gift” to us in Christ in light of broader cultural insights, particularly from the ancient world, though also using modern Eastern conceptions as a helpful, oft-ignored conversation partner. After further explaining the predominant Western concept of grace (§1), we will highlight aspects of grace as seen in the NT (§2). This will be followed by cultural explorations, both conceptually and regarding how grace is practiced differently around the world (§§3–4).

2.   A Common Contemporary Western Evangelical Concept of Grace

Christians want to protect the purity of grace and the gospel. Among Western evangelicals there is a concern to not introduce a “works righteousness” mentality. This dates back en force to the Reformation with its debates surrounding sola gratia and sola fide. With the Synergistic Controversy, Calvinism affirmed monergism in salvation, while Arminianism took the perspective of synergism, and the Majoristic Controversy produced the general Protestant position that good works are not a necessary condition of justification.[11] The gist of the ensuing Reformation gospel is that salvation is the free gift of God, not something dependent upon human effort or works.

The common contemporary Western evangelical reading of God’s grace as “free” then could be said to begin with Martin Luther and John Calvin. In “A Treatise on Good Works,” Luther reiterates that good works are not prerequisites for salvation, but “God in his grace promises us the forgiveness of sins,” which we accept as a “free gift.”[12] Similarly, in his Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Calvin writes, “since we can do nothing of ourselves, God exercises his pure free goodness in saving us . . . let us note along with this that if we are to be partakers of the salvation that God offers us, we must bring nothing with us but faith alone. For (as I said in another place) faith takes no help from good works.”[13] Though both Reformers are careful to communicate the necessity of good works in the justified Christian life,[14] this careful distinction is sometimes lost, and people may wrongly get the impression that one should have faith towards God and can then live in any manner afterwards. Because justification “consists in the free remission of sins”[15] and works contribute nothing to salvation, if grace becomes a payment for good works, grace undermines the gospel. Nobody can obligate God anything, and Christians cannot add anything to what Christ has done or accomplished.[16]

Taking these ideas a little further, some Western evangelicals now are even suspicious of something called the “debtor’s ethic,” a framework in which Christians are burdened by trying pay back God for what he has done as opposed to experiencing a joyful release from sin, obligation, shame, and/or guilt.[17] Regarding the gift of grace, Piper writes, “[God] did not mean it to be an impulse to return favors. If gratitude is twisted into a sense of debt, it gives birth to the debtor’s ethic—and the effect is to nullify grace.”[18] The fear is that if one needs to pay God back that it erases the “free” element of grace. At a popular level, Mathew Gilbert writes:

We must beware of the debtor’s ethic. The debtor’s ethic is the notion that since God has done so much for us, we now owe him a life of obedience. It is a way to pay back the debt we have accrued through receiving God’s grace in the gospel. You’ve probably heard it said, and you may have said it a number of times, “Jesus died for me, the least I can do is live for him.” But the debtor’s ethic robs gratitude of its God-centered joy. Trying to pay God back for what he has done for us is both an impossible and joyless task. It causes sanctification to be fueled by duty and guilt when it should be fueled by delight and grace.[19]

Does the “Jesus died for me, the least I can do is live for him” response actually rob gratitude of its God-centered joy? Always? Specifically for Westerners? For a sub-set of Westerners? Similarly, Lewis Sperry Chafer states, “an act is in no sense gracious if under any conditions a debt is incurred. Grace, being unrecompensed favor is necessarily unrecompensed as to obligations which are past, unrecompensed as to obligations which are present, and unrecompensed to obligations which are future.”[20] Chafer emphatically concludes: “grace must always remain unadulterated in its generosity and benefit. How emphatically this is true of the grace of God towards sinners! Yet how often this aspect of divine salvation is perverted!”[21]

Grace truly is a central issue within Christianity. Luther and Calvin emphasize how God’s grace, freely given, is the sole cause of salvation and that good works have no merit. Forwarding to today, Piper, Chafer, and Gilbert present a common Western evangelical view that divine grace is incompatible with human reciprocation and obligation. If we get the concept of grace wrong, it will throw off the purity of the beliefs and doctrines of the faith. For this reason, a closer examination is definitely warranted for our study.

Samuel Waje Kunhiyop, quoting Donald Bloesch, summarizes what is at stake.

What must be avoided is offering a guarantee of salvation without requiring any responsibility from those baptized . . . “It cannot be doubted that baptism, like many other rites of the church, has become the occasion for cheap grace. It is a means by which grace is freely dispensed but without requiring anything in return. It should demand from the believer his very life, but instead it costs him nothing nor does it place any burden of responsibility upon the parents or godparents.”[22]

Does God demand a return for his gifts, and, if so, what? Does reciprocity cheapen divine grace, or does the lack of reciprocity result in cheap grace?

3.   The Concept of Grace in the Ancient Greco-Roman World

For years now, some NT scholars have observed a more “flexible” use of “grace” within the first century than has been emphasized or acknowledged by many theologians and other Christians in the intervening millennia. The word “grace” is a translation of the Greek term charis and the Latin term gratia, both of which incorporate each of the stages of gift and reciprocity. Seneca, Paul’s Stoic contemporary, shares Chrysippus’ analysis of the Three Graces (Charitēs or Gratiae): charis is a dynamic dance, as charis gives rise to more charis, renewing and enlarging itself.[23] In this continuous flow of gifts, the term names the disposition of “favor” or “kindness” plus anything that gives rise to such feelings, along with the motivation for a gift, the reception of a gift, and the response to a gift. While gratia points more toward favor, which prompts gratitude, which inspires favor, the Latin writers intentionally utilized gratia as charis.[24]

Accordingly, deSilva, for example, pointed out in his 1999 study on “patronage and reciprocity”:

For the actual writers and readers of the New Testament, however, “grace” was not primarily a religious, as opposed to secular, word: rather it was used to speak of reciprocity among human beings and between mortals and God (or, in pagan literature, the gods). This single word encapsulated the entire ethos of the relationships we have been describing.[25]

He continues:

The fundamental ethos governing relationships of patrons and the clients, benefactors and beneficiaries, and friends is that grace must answer grace: the receiving of favor must lead to the return of gratitude, or else the beauty and nobility of the relationship is defaced (dis-graced).[26]

Recent scholarship has re-examined the concept of grace more closely and with greater cultural emphasis. As a chief example, John Barclay traces the history of grace and gives us a clearer paradigm of the different aspects and nuances of this concept in the NT era and culture in conjunction with anthropological insights that have arisen from Marcel Mauss’ work on gift and reciprocity.[27] Barclay notes that “gift-giving is a multifaceted phenomenon,” which means that “gift or grace can be perfected in multiple ways.”[28] In other words, there are different aspects of grace that can be manifested and worked out in relationships (i.e., “perfected”) differently. For example, “the attitude or character of the giver is one thing; the form and scale of the gift another; the relationship between the giver and the recipient another again.”[29] As Barclay stresses, “grace is everywhere . . . but not everywhere the same.”[30] This leads us to what Barclay identifies as “the six perfections of grace,” six angles and perspectives in which grace in its varied dimensions can be drawn out to an extreme.

Barclay names the first perfection superabundance. This speaks of both the gift’s overflowing scale and permanence. This aspect of grace shows a continuous lavishness that stems from the benevolence of God. The apostle Paul calls this “God’s indescribable gift” (2 Cor 9:8–15).

The next perfection is called singularity. This relates to the giver operating solely in the mode of benevolence and goodness. This perfection describes a key characteristic of the person and can be applied to God specifically as the giver of this kind of grace: God is morally perfect and good and can only give gifts that are morally perfect and good.

The third perfection relates to the manner in which the giving is done, that is, its priority. It signifies both the timing and degree of generosity applied. In this perfection, the giver initiates the movement of grace; it is not a response to a request, demand, or any kind of initiative on the part of the recipient.

The fourth perfection focuses on the one to whom the gift is given and is termed incongruity. This type of grace Barclay labels as “unconditioned,” bearing no relation to the worthiness of the recipient.

The fifth perfection deals with the effect of the gift and is termed efficacy. It is used to describe the gift’s achievement of reaching its purpose and perfect end.

The sixth perfection, non-circularity, is seen today as the most “pure” of the six perfections since it did not require or even allow reciprocity. Barclay acknowledges that this perfection most closely resembles the modern Western concept of unilateral grace.[31]

All these perfections point to the different nuances of “grace/gift” that highlight the multiple dimensions of grace throughout history, cultures, and the Scriptures. As Barclay observes, one dimension of grace does not necessitate all the others. The vocabulary of the “perfections” allows theologians to clarify their conversations on divine grace and its theological, ethical, and practical implications.

Seeing more complexity and nuance in how grace works itself out differently in different scenarios and relationships, how might we understand grace in relation to reciprocation? Significantly, Barclay pushes back against the sixth perfection, the idea of an unconditional gift, a gift with no strings attached before or after its reception. Not only is this idea foreign to the ancient Greco-Romans, who all had expectation of reciprocity, but the lack of response from the recipient would indicate a rejection of the giver and the relationship between the giver and recipient. Instead, Barclay emphasizes that the divine gift is “unconditioned,” that God perfects the aspect of incongruity, giving no consideration to the prior worth of the recipients. A response does not necessitate the idea that God is ever “paid back” in full, but God does expect a response, from the immaterial as expressions of gratitude all the way to the offering of oneself as a living sacrifice. This lens of expectation for giving, receiving, and returning may be highlighted via a few NT passages whose references to reciprocity may otherwise be glossed over.

Second Corinthians 8 and 9 display a number of incidents of grace reciprocated, especially in giving financially as well as in gratitude. The start of chapter 8 begins with the gift of God’s grace. Paul writes that the Macedonians have responded with “grace” (or an “act of grace”), a financial gift, presumably to the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:1–3). In 2 Cor 8:6–7, Paul says, “Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete [epitelesē, perfect] among you this grace. But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you—see that you excel in this grace also.” Paul wants Titus to “complete” (epiteleō) the grace among the Corinthians, that is, to perfect or to bring it to its proper end. He further exhorts the Corinthians to “excel” in this act of grace, explaining that the motivation for the reciprocity of the gift was an earnest love which again flowed from God to the people. Many Western interpreters do not have a place for grace being “perfected” (we might further ask whether one of Barclay’s six perfections is applicable here), nor a place for “excelling” in grace. Why? A part of the answer comes in exploring how our interpretive grids work.

This theme of giving and return appears again in 2 Cor 9:6–8 where Paul writes, “The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.” Paul begins this section with an agricultural metaphor of “sowing” and “reaping” that indicates the reciprocity principle. This culminates in verse 8, where we are told that “God is able to make all grace abound to you.” This is the direct action of God when we give to him with heartfelt intention—not reluctantly or under compulsion—as a cheerful giver (v. 7). The gift of God is his abounding grace, a grace that overflows into further acts of giving to others and back to God. What a marvelous gift!

The nature of grace as something that cannot be hoarded by an individual but dynamically incorporates its recipient into further cycles of reciprocity reverberates additionally in Rom 12:3–8. The gifts “differ according to the grace given to us” (v. 6) because the context for the use of these spiritual gifts is participation in the body of Christ (vv. 4–5). Moreover, these verses follow Paul’s appeal in Rom 12:1 to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable worship.” The exchange here is initiated by the “mercies of God” which allows the believer to reciprocate by presenting his or her body as a living sacrifice. Barclay closely relates “mercy” and “grace” in divine gift-giving since the two terms are commonly located together and due to the manner in which God gives mercy without consideration of prior worth.[32] Though mercy falls outside the specific language of grace, he notes, “on the basis of this act of divine mercy, believers are to present their bodies in exclusive orientation to God (12:1; cf. 6:12–23), a mode of ‘reasonable worship’ whose criteria of ‘reason’ are newly defined by the act of God in Christ.”[33] God’s mercy both initiates and empowers the believer to give their bodies as a response or reciprocation of God’s act. Then these “bodies” utilize their spiritual gifts for the good of the body of Christ.

Likewise, Paul calls the Philippians “fellow-sharers in grace” (Phil 1:7).[34] That divine grace animates the gift-giving relationships among the Philippians, Paul, and God. The Philippians are enabled by grace to give to Paul, but that same gift is ultimately to God. Among the Philippians themselves the same dynamic is at work.

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Phil 2:1–4)

The main focus of this passage is that of giving oneself away to another. This is done through the virtue of humility that allows one to “count others more significant than yourselves.” This in turn gives an opportunity to look “to the interests of others.” This reciprocation of love, gifts, and probably finances (evidenced by 4:14–20), allowed for community and unity among the Philippian church. This is a clear example of everyone in the community coming together to help one another and ultimately build up the church as a result of and in response to the divine grace they have received.

In all these passages, the reception of God’s gift necessarily results in participation in Christ that allows for grace to be realized fully and to reach its desired end: that is, people conformed to Christ who become conduits of divine grace to flow outward but also back to God. In this way, sharing and reciprocity are the norm.

4.   Western and Eastern Grids of Interpretation

The cultural backgrounds of the West and the East are different. We will highlight one pertinent example and then list other key elements. The Western cultural worldview tends to be more individualized and privatized, while Eastern culture functions under collectivism and group orientations. These are radically different paradigms that influence one’s perspective on a passage of Scripture and on theological constructions.

For example, when reading a passage like Col 3:16 (“let the word of Christ dwell richly in you”) Western evangelicals tend to read the “you” as individual, internal, and introspective—accomplished by personal devotions. The actual word for “you” is plural (hymin) and would best be understood as “you all,” such as “let Christ’s word dwell richly among you all.”[35] Knowing the language and culture of the text will help us to better understand its meaning. The Western perspective that values individualism and private rights could pose a challenge towards building community. The Western idea of “me, myself, and I” lends to a focus of the person not always engaged in community because of this radical self-sufficiency.[36]

Eastern perspectives are strongly built on collectivism and group orientation. These lead to a more robust sharing of goods, values, and life together. This kind of culture lends strongly to the reciprocity that is involved with relationships. These relationships build up the group and work towards strengthening community.

Another passage that is often individualized but should be understood collectively is Rev 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” Modern Western culture easily suggests that the “door” is the door to one’s heart. The original audience, however, the Laodiceans, would likely not have understood the door in that individualized, internalized, and privatized sense. More likely, they would have understood it collectively in reference to the door of the church. This would be the more natural meaning. Jesus is speaking to the church in Laodicea, after all.

There are downsides to the Eastern communal orientation, of course. It easily produces unhealthy peer pressure or even shame felt from failure to live up to group expectations. In this culture, there is immense pressure to conform to the group standards or norms. The result of this pressure often leads to withdrawal and, in some cases, suicide in order to escape this kind of cultural dynamic.

Asian culture, of course, falls under the Eastern cultural umbrella. To sum up key elements of Asian culture concisely, there are five key cultural dynamics that would characterize being Asian: (1) collectivism; (2) hierarchy; (3) honor and shame; (4) relationships; and (5) reciprocity. Asia is very large and diverse. That said, these generalizations are fairly true of most Asian people. We will see in the next section some ways reciprocity works in practice in Asian culture. Then we will compare how modern-day Asian culture parallels first-century Roman culture, specifically with regard to collectivism and reciprocity.[37]

5.   Can Modern Asian Culture Help Us Understand Greco-Roman Dynamics of Grace?

Reciprocity is the practice of giving gifts to one another with the goal of building community. Reciprocity has been practiced widely throughout Asia for centuries. The dynamics of reciprocity can be traced to both Buddhist and Confucian influence, though the actual practices sometimes seem identical with those of Christians. The motivations and expectations are vastly different, of course. This section will examine how Asian cultural reciprocity compares to the concept of “gift” from the Christian perspective in the backdrop of the NT.

Confucianism is the major ideology and philosophy found throughout Asia. Ten Elshof states that “according to Confucius, there are five basic relationships, the mastery of which will facilitate flourishing for the human person.”[38] These five relationships are (1) the Ruler to the subject; (2) the Father to the son; (3) the Elder brother to the younger brother; (4) the Husband to the wife; and (5) the Friend to the friend. While these relationships are ordered primarily in a hierarchical and authoritative structure, there is also an element of reciprocity within each. Cheng states that the distinctions “are mutually and reciprocally obligated, prescribing a basic sense of social hierarchy. They provide a model for social behavior based on familial relations.”[39]

Buddhism is another major influence among Asians. Their strong communal aspect means they do not believe that persons are isolated beings but are rather interdependent to the point that what they do affects other persons or things in the future life. (This is typically known as karma.) According to Bhagat, “the main goal of Buddhism is to relieve human suffering by helping people to understand and address the causes of suffering.”[40] With this strong emphasis of doing good works to alleviate suffering, Buddhists can gain merit by joining the temple, working with the monks, and living out a moral life.

5.1  Asian Examples of Reciprocity

The dynamics of reciprocity, alongside the characteristic of collectivism, undergirds much of Asian culture and practice. For example, in Buddhism the idea of doing “good works” towards a person necessitates a reciprocal response.[41] This motivation for good works as alleviating others’ suffering leads towards serving others and thus creating a reciprocal relationship. Shin and Silzer note that, “the Buddhist Strong Community view of the self requires reciprocity and thus, doing things for others can be interpreted as good works. The idea of gaining of merit through good works reinforces community ties through the reciprocal sharing of resources that also helps alleviate the suffering that is inherent in life.”[42] Reciprocity is a central tenet within Buddhism that is demonstrated through the exchange of good works. What is notable about the motivation for this is that one must do this in order to gain favor with one another. This makes the reciprocal nature of relationships a part of the Buddhist religion.

In Confucianism, which is especially prevalent in China and Korea, while “humaneness is the core” principle, the concepts of “shu, ‘reciprocity’ and zhong, ‘loyalty’” also play a crucial role. Explaining further, Yao states, “Shu is expressed by the injunction ‘what you do not like yourself do not do to others’ (Lunyu, 15:24). The underlying commitment of shu is not only to refrain from doing harm to others by abiding by rules, but also to integrate one’s self and others by following the Way.” The term zhong has a more positive focus in relationship to loyalty to a person in this reciprocity. Yao clarifies that “it is not enough merely not to impose upon them the things one does not like oneself. It is more important to help others to achieve what one wants, and only in this positive way can one be said to be ‘loyal’ to others.”[43]

Another example of reciprocity can be found in Japanese culture where gifts or acts of service are often given through the principle of giri (duty, obligation).[44] Eng further comments that “many Asian Americans are compelled to bring a gift to the home of a host, as the host offers hospitality. The concept of reciprocity undergirding the hypothetical scenario in James 2:2–4 would resonate with those in East Asian cultures.”[45]

5.2  Cultural Misinterpretations

A clash of cultures between a Western and Asian understanding of grace and its reciprocal nature can be seen in Piper’s Future Grace. He tells the story of his interaction with a missionary while visiting the Philippines. During the visit, Piper is made aware of a Filipino mindset called utang na loob, defined for him as a “debt of volition.”[46] It is further explained as “an interior law which dictates that the recipient of a good act or deed behave generously towards his benefactor as long as he lives.”[47] Rather than seeking to understand this cultural dynamic among the Filipino people, Piper responds with scathing commentary: “This awareness of the reality of utang na loob in Filipino culture, and the problems it creates for the Christian mission, has raised the stakes of my concern higher than ever. I don’t think the spiritual dangers of utang na loob are unique to the Philippines. They are present in every human heart.” He concludes by stating, “We are spring-loaded, it seems, to conceive of our relationship to God in terms that focus on what he has done for us in the past and what we must now do for him in the future by way of repayment.”[48]

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Can’t gratitude along with obedience be empowered by grace as well? Does the practice of utang na loob give us a more comprehensive and global nature of grace? If utang na loob is grounded in Filipino collectivism, in which personhood is defined as a shared self, then reciprocity to God within such a context is transformed into being located within “cruciform solidarity.”[49] Participation in Christ can look like exemplifying the same hospitality, humility, and generosity—all elements found within practices of reciprocity—that Christ exemplified in his incarnation.

5.3  Is There Reciprocity in Grace?

The answer to this question is that it depends on which perspective of grace one holds. Many would say that the answer is “no” because grace is unilateral in nature. What this means is that God is the giver of grace with “no strings attached.” The impulse is to not connect any works to the purity of grace, thus causing its nullification. One of the often-cited passages for support is Rom 11:6 where Paul states, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”

In contrast to this is the NT concept of “gift.” Barclay writes, “what distinguishes the sphere of gift is not that it is ‘unilateral,’ but that it expresses a social bond, a mutual recognition of the value of the person.” This motivation is based more on giving and selflessness rather than a selfish gain. It can also be contrasted with a “donation,” the “one-way gift” that “establishes no relation, [and] creates a permanent and potentially humiliating dependency.”[50] In her work Economy of Grace, Tanner discusses how good gifts are both an invitation as well as a continuation of love. This allows for relationships and ultimately community to be built. “In human relations,” she writes, “as elsewhere in a theological economy, giving should not be at odds with one’s continuing to have. Reciprocity of giving would certainly ensure this. In a human community where others are not holding their gifts simply for themselves, presumably what one gave away would come back to one from others.”[51]

Reciprocity was a cultural norm in first-century Greco-Roman culture. This normal exchange would lead to relationships and ultimately community. DeSilva notes that “one of the more important contributions an awareness of the ethos of grace in the first-century world can make is implanting in our minds the necessary connection between giving and responding, between favor and gratitude in the fullest sense.”[52] Reciprocity was indubitably deeply embedded in the practices of NT people, both in their values and culture.

While expectations of reciprocity have the potential to become destructive, per the fears of Piper and other Western evangelical thinkers, they also hold the real possibility of being constructive.[53] Reciprocation of God’s grace does not undermine its unmerited, free nature.

As Barclay carefully outlines, God freely offers his gift to all, paying no attention to prior conditions or to the worthiness of his recipients. There is no goodness in humans that make them worthy of being given such a gift (incongruity). In other words, grace remains grace when God gives us the things that we do not deserve. Barclay would not deny that the ability itself to offer a return is contained within the initial divine gift, for the return is a participation animated by faith rather than through sheer human effort—here he would even find agreement with Luther and Calvin.[54] In this way, reciprocity affirms the purpose of the divine gift: to effect reconciliation between God and humans.

Moreover, thinking about Seneca, the Three Graces, and the “theme and variation” of the dance of charis, the divine gift impacts not only the relationship between God and humans but also the horizontal relationship among humans. God’s grace is not something static to be possessed by an individual, but its gratuitousness inspires and expands both gratitude and further gratuitousness that overflows from believers to others. The resultant horizontal reconciliation is practically experienced in fellowship, in mutuality, in sharing, in the giving and receiving—all modes of reciprocity found within the body of Christ and enabled by divine grace. God’s gift is not nullified by gratitude, by sharing the gift with others, or by participation in the body of Christ. Rather, the true gift is the catalyst for all pure giving, selfless sharing of the self without concern about future return (while crucially not excluding the possibility of return).

6.   Conclusion

The goal of this article has been to shed light on different perspectives of grace and reciprocity through the cultural lens of the East Asian perspective so as to free us a bit more to see clearly the possibilities of the meaning of grace in the NT. Much of this material may be somewhat different and even unfamiliar to those in the West.

A key part of this study has been to contextualize the concept of grace in order to appreciate the historical angles of this doctrine by way of a brief exploration of wider cultural understandings of grace, gift, and reciprocity. First Corinthians 9:19–23 highlights this practice. Paul writes:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The final line—“I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings”—sums up the whole value of reciprocity and grace. May grace abound for you in Christ Jesus!