B u lle tin fo r Biblical Research 24.

2 (2014) 207-226

The Expectation ٠ / Grace:

Paul on Benefaction and the Corinthians'
Ingratitude (2 Corinthians 6:1)

B. ]. OROPEZA
A Z U SA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY

This article contributes to discussions on ancient patron-client relationships with

a view to God as a benefactor who bestowsfavors on the early followers ofChrist.
The perspective sheds light on Paul's word to the Corinthians that they should
not receive God's grace in vain (2 Cor 6:1), a warning that creates tensions for
interpreters who assume that divine grace is freely given without expecting any-
thing in return. This study shows that the system ofgifl giving and reciprocity,
especially in conversation with Seneca, helps alleviate the tensions. It elaborates
on gratitude as the proper human response to divine gift giving and undesirable
reprisals as the appropriate consequence for ingratitude.
Key Words: grace, benefaction, reciprocity, gratitude, ingratitude, Seneca,
2 Corinthians

In t r o d u c t i o n

Paul's letters are typically known for affirming that salvation is an act of
grace ‫ س‬that grace and righteousness are God's gifts through Jesus Christ
(e.g., Rom5:16-17;cf. 3:24-28;432 - 8:29‫ ت‬6- 2; ‫ ة‬1:- ‫ ; ة‬E ph2:8-9;3:7). Paul re-
peats similar affirmations in 2 Corinthians. Christ's love is demonstrated to
humanity through his atoning death (2 Cor 5:14), and God has graciously
taken the initiative to reconcile humans to God's self in Christ (5:18-19).
The Savior was "made sin" so that humans might become "the righteous-
ness of God" (5:21).1 The apostle also thanks God for God's indescribable
"gift" of the Christ event (9:15).2While these passages support the idea that
saving grace is umnerited, it is frequently assumed that this grace, if it is
truly God's gift, expects nothing in return. It is entirely void of self-regard . ‫ت‬

1. The aspects of "sin" and "righteousness" in 5:21 have metonymic force with the abstract
replacing the concrete. Thus, άμαρτία here may stand for "sinner" and δικαιοσύνη for "righteous
people." See Jan Lambrecht, '"Reconcile Yourselves ...': A Reading of 2 Corinthians 5,11-21,"
in Studies on 2 Corinthians (ed. Reimund Bieringer, Jan Lambrecht; BETL 112; Leuven: Leuven
University Press and Peeters, 1994) 363-412, here, pp. 388-89.
2. Cf. Margaret E. Thrall, 2 Corinthians 8-13 (ICC; London: T ‫ ظ‬T. Clark, 2000) 2.594.
3. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, "Gift giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8
on the Logic of God's χάρις and Its Human Response," HTR 101 (2008) 154 4 , here, p p . 1 1 8 ‫ ﺀ‬,
rightly disagrees with the validity of this assumption; he traces it back to Immanuel Kant.
208 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

The Tension 0f2 Corinthians 6:1

Scholars with this assumption, however, tace a paradox when reading in
2 Cor 6:1 that Paul implores the Corinthians ‫״‬not to receive the grace of
God in vain" (μή εις κενόν τήν χάριν του θεοϋ δέξασθαι). Here, Paul warns
them that they must not place themselves in a position in which God's gra-
cious activity in their lives becomes ineffective and serves no purpose. The
rhetorical situation of 2 Cor 1-7 suggests that they primarily accuse him
of being an incompetent minister of God (1:12; 2:16b-17; cf. 10:9-10; 11:6).٠
His sincerity is also called into question because he failed to visit them as
promised (1:12,17-20; 1:23-2:3; 4:2; 7:2). Paul must now defend himself by
claiming to be Christ's ambassador and a co-worker with God (5:20a; 6:1a).
He prompts them to recall that God had appointed him as the messenger
who first proclaimed the gospel of salvation to them (3:1-3; 6:11-13; 7:2-3;
cf. 2 Cor 12:14; 1 Cor 4:14-15).
More specifically, in 6:1 the apostle is warning the Corinthians not that
their present condition might show God's grace was never truly effectual
for them in the past but that the grace they presently experience might
become ineffectual. We can adduce from various comments Paul makes to
them that he considers the Corinthians to be saved and benefitting from
this grace already (2 Cor 1:21-24; 5:5; 8:9; 9:14; cf. 1 Cor 1:4-8, 18; 6:11;
12:13). Thus, he warns them against falling away from grace and forfeiting
salvation (cf. 1 Cor 10:12). ‫ و‬The parallel exhortation in 5:20 makes clear that
both this verse and 6:1 address the Corinthians. Paul urges them to be rec-
onciled to God.6The second-person plural καταλλάγητε (5:20b) is directed at
them rather than generic nonbelievers encountered during Paul's mission-
ary endeavors/ In 6:2, the favorable time of salvation for the Corinthians
is "now," suggesting that they must change their current behavior in 6:1
or risk the forfeiture of spiritual benefits they have received in the new era
ushered in by the Christ event.
When we compare 5:10-11 with 5:20-6:2, it becomes evident that the
reception of "grace in vain" is another way of saying that the Corinthians

4. See, e.g., Ben Witherington, Conflict ‫ س‬Community in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Com-

mentary on 1 2 ‫ س‬Corinthians (Cariïsle: ?aternester, 1995) 371-74.
5. On this point, see turther, B. ١
. Oropeza, Jews, Gentiles, ‫ س‬the Opponents ofPaul: Apos-
tasy in the New Testament Communities. The Pauline Letters (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012) 122-25;
idem, Paul andApostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and FallingAway in the Corinthian Congregation
(WUNT 2/115: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 192-212.
6. Here καταλλ(^γητε may be understood as a true passive ("let yourselves be reconciled")
or reflexive ("reconcile yourselves"): cf. Reimund Bieringer, " 'Reconcile Yourselves to God': An
Unusual Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5.20 in Its Context," in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity:
Studies in Honour ofHenk Jan de Jonge (ed. Rieuwerd Buitenwerf et al.; NovTSup 130; Leiden:
Brill, 2008) 11-38. In either case, the imperatival force of the verb makes clear that their re-
sponse is required to make good the reconciliation.
7. Contrast Murray j. Harris, The Second Epistle ‫؛‬٠ the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 2005) 147-49. Although, in 5:20, "you" does not appear before παρακαλέω, it is
implied not only by καταλλάγητε but by the parallel παρακαλέω in 6:1 that is accompanied by
ύμάς. Moreover, Paul will urge the Corinthians to seek "restoration" in 2 Cor 13:9 (κατάρτισις:
LSJ 910) and 13:11 (καταρτίζω, BDAG 526).
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 209

are in danger of jeopardizing a salvation that would deliver them from ret-
ribution on judgment day.^ The apostle discloses that he, the Corinthians,
and others will appear before the tribunal of Christ to receive reward or
punishment for the deeds they performed when living in their earthly
bodies. In 5:11, his rhetorical strategy is to elicit the pathos of fear in refer-
ence to this judgment, a fear he mentions not merely as an incentive for
his ministry to the lost but also with the aim of persuading the Corinthians
to be cautious of their own conduct. He prompts them to abandon their
wrongful accusations against him out of fear of lo w in g they will be held
accountable for their actions at the tribunal. This is not so much a new
tactic in his correspondence as it is a new way of articulating an earlier
strateg y -in 1 Corinthians, he had appealed to the fear of final condemna-
tion when warning them against having a false confession of faith in Christ
(1 Cor 15:2,14,17-18;16:22). ‫و‬
The Pauline churches are accountable to the Creator and Christ; that is
to say, in the words of Leander Keck, they are "vulnerable to a verdict by
someone authorized to render it,"10 and they will give an account of their
deeds on judgment day (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:4b, 12; cf. Heb 4:13). Those who
are in Christ could be found blameless on that day (cf. 1 Thess 3:15; 5:23;
Phil 1:10). If they are judged unfavorably, however, Paul's missionary work
among them would be "in vain" and serve no purpose because congre-
gation members succumbed to denying Christ on account of persecution
(1 Thess 3:5; Phil 2:16), or embraced false teachings that led them astray
from Paul's gospel (Gal 4:10-11; cf. 3:4), or, as in Corinth, rejected Paul as
God's messenger, followed his opponents, and continued to indulge in de-
structive vices (2 Cor 5:20-6:2; cf. 2:17; 6:11-7:3; 11:2-5,13-15;12‫ ت‬21‫־‬ 20(. ‫آل‬

Scholarly Responses to the Tension

The tension between the congregants receiving grace as unmerited favor

on the one hand and apparently losing it to face divine judgment on the
other has often been addressed by theological discussions on justification

8. Rightly connecting these verses with the Corinthians' decision for or against Paul is
Matthias Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichts-
aussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor (BZNW 117;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 484.
9. See Anders Eriksson, "Fear of Eternal Damnation: Pathos Appeal in 1 Corinthians
15 and 16," in Paul and Pathos (ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and ]erry L. Sumney; Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2001) 115-26. Notice also the "fear of God" and holiness in 2 Cor 7:1.
10. Leander E. Keck, "The Accountable Self," in Theology and Ethics in Paul and His In-
terpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (ed. Eugene H. Lovering and Jerry L. Sumney;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 1-13, here, p. 2; cf. pp. 4-8.
11. The words stressed in these verses overlap in meaning: Κ£νός ("empty," "without
purpose": e.g., 2 Cor 6:1; 1 Thess 3:5; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16), εικη ("to no avail": e.g., Gal 3:4; 4:11;
1 Cor 15:2), and μάταιος ("idle," "empty" "useless1 :‫ ״‬Cor 15:17); cf. BDAG 281, 539, 621. The
term in vain can be used for all the verses. On its relation to the salvific dangers faced by the
respective Pauline communities see Oropeza, Opponents of Paul, esp. pp. 18-19, 38-41, 106-8,
122-25.
210 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

and works.12 Perhaps a fresher approach may be found through studies

related to benefaction in the ancient Mediterranean world. Scholars such as
James Harrison, Zeba Crook, and John Barclay have argued that Paul can
interpret grace in terms of gift giving or granting a favor that comes from
God, and God may be considered by those who receive the gift as their
divine Benefactor. ٧ Troels Engberg-Pederson argues that this gift giving
may not be exclusive of the giver's own aims and interests.14 If so, then
the divine benefactor might expect a return from those who receive grace.
Societal protocols related to gift giving and the expectation of some
sense of reciprocity for them would seem to play a prominent role related
to Paul's understanding of grace. If his Gentile audiences were raised on
the Greco-Roman system of gift giving and reciprocity, they would seem
to comprehend grace as benefaction. Both Paul and his congregations do
not seem to operate with overt distinctions between spiritual and mate-
rial benefaction. The apostle, for example, appeals to the Corinthians to
contribute to the poor in Jerusalem ‫ س‬assures them that their generosity
would be reciprocated both spiritually and materially. On the principle of
sowing and reaping, if they sow bountifully with financial generosity they
can expect to reap God's blessing "in every way" (2 Cor 9:6-14; cf. 8:14;
IC o r 9:11; Rom 15:27).
Equally, for Paul the principle of sowing and reaping pertains to moral
obligation.^ Believers may sow to their own "flesh" and receive corruption,
or they could sow to the Spirit and receive eternal reward (Gal 6:7-9). If the
need for moral obligation pertains to certain situations in his churches—
and it certainly appears to do so in Corinth given the congregation's vices
and divisions (e.g., 2 Cor 12:20-21; cf. 6:14-7:1; 1 Cor 3:1-3; 15:33-34)-
then we might expect Paul to use certain principles related to benefaction
and reciprocity as a means of persuading the congregation to better moral
behavior.

12. See, e.g., Dane c . Ortlund, "Justification by Faith, Judged according to Works: An-
other Look at a Fauiine Faradox," JETS 52 (2009) 323-39; Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, andjudg-
ment according ‫؛‬٠ Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: Cambridge University Fress, 1999); Klyne
Snodgrass, "Justification by G race-to the Doers: An Analysis of the Flace of Romans 2 in the
Theology of Paul," NTS 32 (1986) 72-93 (esp. p. 73); Nigel M. Watson, "Justified by Faith: Judged
by Works: An Antimony?" NTS 29 (1983) 209-21; Russell Fregeant, "Grace and Recompense:
Reflections on a Fauline Faradox," JAAR 47 (1979) 73-96; Karl F. Donfried, "Justification and
Last Judgment in Paul," Z N W 67 (1976) 90-110.
13. James R. Harrison, Paul's Language ofGrace in Its Greco-Roman Context (WUNT 2/172;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty,
and Conversion in the Religions ofthe Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW130; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004)
13248; John M. G. Barclay, "Believers and the 'Last Judgment‫ ׳‬in Paul" (paper presented at
the Durham-Tübingen Kolloquium, September, 2009) 1-9. On God as Benefactor, see further,
Jerome H. Neyrey, "God, Benefactor and Fatron: The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting
the Deity in Greco-Roman Antiquity," JSNT 27 (2005) 465-92; Bruce ١ ■Malina, The Social World
ofjesus (London: Routledge, 1996) 143-75.
14. Engberg-Federsen, "Gift giving," 27-29; cf. pp. 20-21.
15. Faul's metaphors of sowing and reaping seem derived from Israel's Scriptures and
suggest that his notion of reciprocity is not merely developed from Greco-Roman models. See,
e.g., Fss 112[1115 : [126 ]125;9:‫ ; ا‬Frov 11:24; 22:8; Isa 55:10-11; Hos 8:7; 10:12-13.
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 211

David deSilva interacts with these thoughts when he writes that grati-
tude expresses itself in a return of ‫״‬grace for grace" through acts of obe-
dience such as service and good works to the divine benefactor. These
deeds "are not offered to gain favor from God, but nevertheless they must
be offered in grateful response ‫؛‬٠ God. To refuse these is to refuse the
patron (who gave his all for us) the return he specially re v e s ts from us
٠٠. if Jesus gave his life for us, we fall short of a fair return unless we live
our lives for him (2 Cor 5;14-15; Gal 216 " .‫ت‬A(20 recipient's ingratitude or
contempt can turn away the benefactor's favor and "threatens to make one
'fall from favor' (Gal 5:4), resulting in the danger of exclusion from future
benefactions."17 An important corollary follows from this: the forfeiture of
grace might be an outcome for those who fail to respond with gratitude
toward the benefactor's favors.
Our task, then, is to build on these notions by interpreting Paul's view
of grace in light of benefaction and reciprocity, especially in reference to
how adverse repercussions can become the expected result of the Corin-
thian congregation's ingratitude toward divine favors. Looking at Paul's
warning in 2 Cor 6:1 through the lens of benefaction may help alleviate
tensions created by the prospect of Christ-followers who participate in foe
gifr of salvation and yet are in danger forfeiting that We will now ex-
amine grace in terms of benefaction and the reciprocity of gratitude, both
in Paul and in societal standards of his day, especially in light of Seneca.
Then we will consider the thought of ingratitude and its repercussions in
relation to the Corinthian correspondence.

P a u l ' s V ie w o f G r a c e A s a G ift o f B e n e f a c t i o n

The conceptual background to Paul's language of grace (χάρις) seems to

spring from a blending of terms from Israel's Scriptures and social norms
from Greco-Roman culture. As James Dunn affirms, Paul's perspective ap-
pears to be derived from a combination of the Hebrew words ‫"( חן‬favor,"
"grace"), which is often one-sided, and ‫"( חסד‬covenant love," "gracious
favor," "lovingkindness"), which often expects a return in secular use but
in religious use conveys an enduring quality Paul's χάρις carries both the
ideas of "unilaterafoess" and "lasting commitment": "God's purpose for
humankind was one of generous initiative and sustained faithfulness."19

16. David A. deSilva, Honor; Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000) 146; cf. 141-51.
17. DeSdva, 149. Differently, when interpreting 1 Corinthians in light of patronage and
honor, Jerome H. Neyrey, Render to God: New Testament Understandings ofthe Divine (Minneapo-
lis: Fortress, 2004) 157-58, suggests that God's justice relates to God's faithfulness and benefac-
tion for the Christ-followers. Divine justice also relates to divine judgment that can manifest
itself for the purpose of reforming the one punished (1 Cor 5:5), preserving the Lawgiver's
honor in a quid-pro-quo lex talionis manner (3:17), and via examples preventing others from
committing similar violations (10:6-11).
18. Although deSilva references 2 Cor 6:1 as one of many examples of undesirable re-
prisais (pp. 149-50), he does not elaborate on the passage but focuses instead on Heb 6:1-10.
19. James D. G. Dunn, Theology ofPaul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 321-22.
For the Hebrew terms, see, respectively, H.-J. Eabry, TDOT 5:22-36; H.-J. Zobel, TDOT 5:44-64.
212 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

To this notion Paul adds the concept of benefaction commonly known

in Greco-Roman social contexts of his day. The blending of these ideas is not
surprising given his Jewish-Hellenistic upbringing (Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:5-6;
cf. Acts 22:2-3; 23:6; 26:5). No doubt, he would be quite familiar with the
type of Hellenistic traditions we find in the Apocrypha and Septuagint,
which evince Israel's God as benefactor and gift giver (εύεργεσία/εύεργετέω:
e.g., Wis 16:11; 2 Macc 1 3 8 ‫ ; ﺗ ﻪ‬Pss 12[13]:6 LXX; 77[78‫ ل‬:11‫ ﻣ ﺮ‬This perspec-
tive would not seem to be much different from that of Philo, ١٧^ uses
εύεργεσ(α and χάρις interchangeably in relation ‫؛‬٠ the benefaction of God,
who created the world as a gift for humankind (Leg. 3.77-78).
Although a one-size-fits-all definition of grace is too simplistic to ex-
plain all of Paul's uses of this term in his letters, the notions of benefaction
and gift giving related to χάρις would be familiar to his Gentile audiences.
They regularly noticed various images and inscriptions honoring human
benefactors in their cities. ‫ ص‬We might generally expect that, when com-
municating to Greek-speaking audiences such as the Corinthians, Paul
would use χάρις to imply both that God shows lasting and loving favor
to human recipients ‫ س‬that God is their ultimate benefactor whose gifts
elicit a response from them. At the same time, the unilateral aspect of grace
for Paul would appear to center on God's gift of the Christ event, which
brings salvation to the world. As such, grace would seem to suggest God's
initiative, generosity to the undeserved, and the ii^ossibility of recipients
to match the abundance of the favor.
In 2 Cor 6:1, χάρις refers to a small constellation of benefits God initi-
ates and bestows on the Corinthians—reconciliation, forgiveness, atone-
ment, and righteousness and a new creation brought about by the advent,
death, and resurrection of Christ (5:14-21). Conzelmann rightly identifies
grace here as the "totality of salvation." 21 This deliverance means an ex-
emption from divine punishment destined for evildoers (cf. 1 Cor 1:18;
1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; Rom 1:18; 3:5; 5:9). Because God bestows grace without
payment, it can be understood as a gift (cf. δωρεά: Rom 3:24; cf. 5:15, 17;
Eph 3:7; 4:7).22 Paul associates χάρις in 6:1 with toe favorable time of sal-
vation echoed from Isa 49:8, which he interprets as "now" taking place
through the message of reconciliation brought about by the Christ event.
The acceptable era has arrived and is characterized by faithful believers
participating in the new creation "in Christ" (2 Cor 6:2; cf. 5:17-19). The
act of God giving Christ brings about salvation and righteousness to an
undeserving people through toe savior's advent and atoning death on the
cross (5:121 ,15‫ ; ه‬cf. 8:9; 9:15; Gal 2:20; Rom 3:24; 5:8,15-17; 8:32).
This all reinforces the idea that Paul and the Corinthians may under-
stand grace as a gift from toe divine Benefactor, and in 6:1 grace is more
specifically understood as salvation that has come about through Christ.

20. Cf. Dunn, Theology ofPaul, 321.

21. Hans Conzelmann, TDNT 9:394.
22. See similar notions of χάρις/χαρίζομαι as a gift in 1 Cor 2:12; Rom 8:32; Gal 3:18;
Phil 1:29; 2:9; ‫ﺀ‬£. Eph 2:8-9.
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 213

G if t G i v i n g and R e c ip r o c it y

If it seems impossible for us to fathom that gifts as magnificent as Christ

and salvation could be appropriately returned by the recipients, in e g a l-
ity related to the gift-giving system was nothing new for the ancient
world. The benefactor's gifts and favors included property, protection,
money, debt release, disaster relief, access to other patrons, and gifts to
help build edifices, temples, and theaters (Xenophon, Oec. 7.26; Aristotle
Eth. Nie. 1163B.1-5; Pliny Ep. 10.5-10; Seneca Ep. 81.27; POxy 1.33.2,15-16).
Patrons and benefactors typically had all the resources necessary to out-
give their clients.23 Clients nonetheless would be expected to reciprocate
for the benefits they received regardless of their benefactor's wealth and
self-sufficiency.^ These relationships were voluntary and asymmetrical
involving "two parties of unequal status," who exchange different goods
and services.23
The system of benefaction in G eo-R om an society went hand-in-hand
with the return of recipients' gratitude for gifts and favors received.^ Mo-
tivation behind a number of ancient inscriptions was that the persons being
honored should receive proper forms of gratitude for their b e n e f i c e n c e . 2 2
Many of Aesop's fables seem built on the premise of returning favors,23 and
the pervasiveness of this tradition is quite evident as we read that children
were taught to articulate these fables orally in the days of Quintilian (Inst.
1.9.2). Tikewise, in the rhetorical handbooks we read, "For just as it is right
to punish those who do harm, so it is also fitting to return kindness to those
who render kind services (τούς ^ε^ετήσαντας)" (Rhet. Alex. 1.1422a.35; cf.
Aristotle Rhet. 2.2.8; Theon Progym. 64). The exchange of favors, in fact, was
said to hold together human society (Seneca Ben. 1.4.2).

23. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, 6 - 7 , 101-4, identifies an important distinction between pa-
trons and benefactors as follows: the former knows the client personally and chooses to have
that person as client; the latter is more public, open to persons of means, and the recipients
need to be clients. See further on patron-client relationships, Neyrey, "God, Benefactor"; Ernst
Gellner and John Waterbury, eds.. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duck-
worth, 1977).
24. The Greeks generally emphasized reciprocity, and the Romans patronage: see Chris-
topher Gill, Norman Fostlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, eds., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece
(Oxford: Oxford University, 1998); Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, "Fatronage in Roman Society," in
Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989) 63-85; Richard F. Sailer, Personal Patron-
age under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Fress, 1982).
25. Cf. Miriam Griffin, "De Beneficiis and Roman Society," Journal of Roman Studies 93
(2003) 92-113 (esp. p. 95).
26. E.g., Homer Od. 4.695; Euripides Orest. 244; Plato, Rep. 338; Dio Chrysostom Or. 73.9;
Cicero De Off. 2.xviii.63; Fliny Pan. 60.7; Fhilo Spec. Leg. 1.224; G. w Feterman, Paul's Giftfrom
Philippi: Convention of Gift-Exchange and Christian Giving (SNTSMS 92; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997) 22-89; Harrison, Paul's Language ofGrace, 50-53, 75-77,175-78.
27. See examples in Frederick w. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic stu dy of a Greco-Roman
and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis, MO: Clayton, 1982).
28. See, e.g., Aesop, "The Wolf and the Crane," "The Man and foe Serpent," "The Lion
and the Mouse," "Androcles and the Lion," "The Fox and the Stork," and "The Snake and the
Farmer," in ]٠ Jacobs, Folk-Lore and Fable: Aesop, Grimm, Andersen (ed. C. w. Eliot; Harvard Clas-
sics; New York: Collier, 1937) 12-13,15-16,19-21.
214 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

How might gratitude in an asymmetrical relationship be exhibited? A

client could express it through giving thanks, service, loyalty, and promot-
ing the honor and reputation of the patron. A grateful city-state could give
praise and public recognition to the benefactor, whether at social gather-
ings, sporting events, festivals, or by erecting a statue of the benefactor
(e.g., Horace, Sat. 1.1.9-10; ?liny Ep. 10.51).2‫و‬
Caesar's benefactions are perhaps the closest rival to the new ideology
of benefaction in Christ Jesus. Christ as God's son who ushers in a new ere-
ation and deliverance stood against societal assumptions about the emperor
as lord of the world and prime benefactor who brings a peaceful order to
society. The Res Gestae inscription rehearses Caesar Augustus's great deeds.
He provided, for example, 400,000,000 sesterces for his soldiers at the end
of their service, a beneficence read as an "act of grace" (Res. Ges. 16).30 The
senate and Roman people give him a golden shield in recognition of his
valor, clemency, justice, and piety (Res. Ges. 34). The r a ^ r o r 's benefactions
could not be matched by his subjects, and so they reciprocated by giving
him honor and gifts. They also swore their allegiance to him (Res. Ges. 25).
A Cypriot oath names Augustus as "god" and includes an oath to Tiberius:
"we swear that we and our descendants shall give heed and obey on land
and on sea; that we shall show our good will and shall reverence Tiberius
Caesar Augustus, son of Augustus, together with all his house, and that
we shall consider their friends or enemies our friends or en em ies." 3 ‫ل‬
In a similar way, ?aul speaks of God's being in Christ and bestow-
ing the grace of salvation to the world in terms of peace (καταλλαγή) and
ju s^ e /ri^ te o u sn e ss (δικαιοσύνη) in 2 Cor 5:14-6:1 (cf. Rom 3:24; 5:1-2,17;
1 Cor 1:30). This sort of language seems to challenge imperial rule because
Christ is viewed as the representative of deity and ultimate benefactor
of the world. The challenge would not go unnoticed by the Corinthian
auditors who were deeply entrenched by Roman id e o lo g y .^ ? a u l claims
as part of the proposition of 2 Corinthians that God and Christ lead the
Christ-followers about in a triumphal procession (2:14-17), which would
doubtless conjure up for the auditors images of Caesar's triumphal en-
trances in Rome and elsewhere.33 It follows from these comparisons that

29. See j. H. Elliett, "?atronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading
Guide,‫ ״‬Forum 3 (1987) 39-48.
30. Frederick w. Shipley, trans. (LCL): "persolvi, quam in rem sestertium quater milhens
libenter impendi." This edition of the Monumentum Ancyranum: Res Gestae D ivi Augustus can be
found on-line: http://penelope.uchicago.edU/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/
home.html.
31. Translation from Danker, Benefactor, 315.
32. On Roman influence in mid-first-century Corinth, see Bruce w Winter, After Paul
Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
33. On 2 Cor 2:14-17 as the propositio of the letter, see, e.g., George A. Kennedy New
Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Fress, 1984) 88-89. On the procession here as a military triumph as opposed to other options,
see Roger David Aus, Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 and Elsewhere in
the Epistle (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005).
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 215

divine benefactions through Christ might r e t i r e of beneficiaries similar

honor and allegiance that beneficiaries render to Caesar.

Se n e c a o n Be n e f a c t io n

Book-length treatises on benefaction attest to the subject's importance in

the ancient Mediterranean world, including Seneca the Younger's On Ben-
efits, Cicero's On Duties, Theophrastus's On Gratitude, Epicurus's On Gifts
and Gratitude, and Chrysippus's two works, On Duties and On Favors.M A
complete survey of these sources would go beyond the scope of this study,
and so we draw our attention to Seneca's work, which among extant an-
cient sources of this kind is perhaps the most lengthy.
In Seneca's work both the benefactor and recipient are expected to fol-
low principles regarding the reception and reciprocation of gifts (Ben. 1.1.1).
Benefits, however, are not the same thing as bartering and should not
be given in order to get something back (4.13.3; 4.14.2). Cift giving has
the other person's interest at heart even though it is not exclusive of the
giver's self-interests . ‫ و و‬The ideal person gives, receives, and reciprocates
benefits, and this voluntary activity is considered a virtue. Some people
do not react in positive ways to favors, but their ingratitude should not
'٠ from generosity (1.1.9-13). Giving should be voluntary,
with benefactors bestowing gifts from the prompting of their own will
and recipients being willing to reciprocate (1.6.1; 4.40.1-2). If there is an
acceptable return for doing favors, the reward is a good conscience that
one has done a benefit. Conversely, if one is not benevolent, there is fear
that one loses an opportunity to do good (4.12.4). Seneca captures well the
attitude of both giver and receiver when he makes the claim: "In the case
of a benefit, this is a binding rule for the two who are concerned-the one
should straightway forget that it was given, the other should never forget
that it was received" (2.10.4; cf. 2.18.2).
For the benefactor it would be better to lose the benefit than ask for
repayment, and he or she also should not constantly remind the recipi-
ent of the benefit; otherwise, this would be a reminder that repayment is
necessary (1.1.13; 2.11.1-2). Exceptions, however, include the benefactor
asking for a return during a crisis or when the recipient is slow to return
a favor (5.20.7; 5.22.1-3).37 For the recipients, the acceptance of a benefit
places them under obligation to do everything necessary to return the favor
(1.4.3; 2.35.3-5; 6.16.2, 4; 7.16.1-5). Good will and gratitude are the proper
responses to benefits, and both benefactors and recipients are required to

34. On the relevant works o£ Theophrastus, Epicurus, and Chrysippus, see Diogenes
Eaertius 5.48; 10.28; SVF 3.674; 2.1081, respectively. Cf. Griffin, "Roman Society," 92.
35. Cf. Engberg-Pedersen, "Gift giving," 20-21.
36. The primary Latin source used here is John w. Basore, trans., Seneca: Moral Essays
(vol. 3; LCL 310; Camhridge: Harvard University, 1935) 67, whose English translation is also
used in this case. Unless otherwise stated, the translations are mine.
37. On this point, see also Stephan j. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and
Theological Reflection in Paul's Collection (WUNT 2/124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 46.
216 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

choose the other person wtsely. Benefactors should choose someone who Is
uprtght, sincere, grateful, and worthy of receiving gifts (1.1.2; 4.10.3-11.1);
recipients should choose benefactors to whom they do not object, lest the
obligation feel like torture (2.18.3-5). Seneca compares proper benefaction
with the daughters of Zeus known as Graces or Charités. He depicts them
as three sisters dancing in a ring:
There is one [maiden] for bestowing a benefit, another for receiving
it, and a third of returning it. . . . Why do the sisters hand in hand
dance in a ring which returns upon itself? For the reason that a benefit
passing in its course from hand to hand returns nevertheless to the
giver: the beauty of the whole is destroyed if the course is anywhere
broken, and it has most beauty if it is continuous and maintains an
uninterrupted succession. ٠.. Their faces are cheerful, as are ordinär-
ily the faces of these who bestow or receive benefits. They are young
because the memory of benefits ought not grow old. They are maidens
because benefits are pure and undefiled and holy in the eyes of all;
and it is fitting that there should be nothing to bind or restrict them,
and so the maidens wear flowing robes, and these, too are transparent
because benefits desire to be seen." (1.3‫ م‬5‫־‬
3(‫ة ت‬
He also draws our attention to toe importance of divine benefaction. The
immortal deities hold humans dear and have given them the greatest honor
possible (2 .2 6. ‫) و‬. To an interlocutor who claims that the deity gives no ben-
efits, Seneca responds that food provided by nature, living creatures, and
creation itself with its lands, trees, plants, rivers, and precious minerals
are among toe many benefits from the deity. Such things provide humans
with countless delights and show that they are loved excessively (4.5.1-3;
4.6.1-3). For Seneca, gratitude in terms of worship and good will are ap-
propriate modes of reciprocation to the gods (4.19.3; 7.15.4-5).

P aut. and Se n e c a

Paul's perception of grace is both similar to and differs with Seneca. Paul
seems to reject the benefactor's choice of a worthy client, at least in refer-
ence to the way God has given Christ. God has chosen unworthy humans
to receive the benefit of salvation through Christ. While humanity was still
at enmity with God, God sent his son to provide humanity's reconciliation
(2 Cor 5:18-19). God loved his creatures, and Christ died for them while
they were still sinners (cf. Rom 5:6-10). Seneca, however, speaks of human
benefactors rather than God on this point, and he does view deity as be-
stowing many benefits on humans (Ben. 4.9.1).39

38. Translated by ‫ر‬. w. Basore.

39. Cf. Neyrey, "God, Benefactor," 482-83, who Interprets such beneficence as "general-
ized reciprocity," a klnshlp-styled model "whereby the interests of' the other are primary."
This is distinguished from "balanced reciprocity," a tit-for-tat exchange among neighbors,
and "negative reciprocity" in which enemies or strangers seek self-interest at the expense of
others (p. 469).
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 217

Both Paul and Seneca consider giving to he left to one's own choice
and not done under compulsion (e.g., 2 Cor 9:6-7; Rom 8:32), and both
consider gratitude to be a proper response to a gift (e.g., 2 Cor 1:10-11; 9:15;
Phil 4:10,18-19). In this regard, the cycle of giving, receiving, and return-
ing a favor holds true for both. Paul, however, breaks the cycle on a per-
sonal level when refusing to receive money from the Corinthians in return
for ministering to them. He wants his gospel to be free of charge, which
turns out to be a point of contention with the congregation (1 Cor 9:11-12,
17-18; 2 Cor 11:7-12; 12:13-14). No doubt, besides accusing him of duplicity
in the matter (cf. 2 Cor 1:12; 4:2; 12:16-18), the congregants would be irate
with him because he violates societal protocols by not permitting them
to return a favor. They might even interpret his refusal as a hostile act.40
Moreover, Paul accepts financial support from the Philippians but not
the Corinthians (Phil 4:10-19). Did the Corinthians understand that de-
pendency and obligation belongs to God first and that the true giver of
salvation via the gospel is God rather than humans such as Paul and Apol-
los (1 Cor 3:5-9; cf. 1 Thess 2:13)? The Philippians apparently understood
such things (2 Cor 8:1-5; cf. Phil 1:3-9; 2:12-13, 27-30), and perhaps the
Corinthians did not.41 They prized instead the abilities of human orators
and their outward appearances (1 Cor 1:11-13; 2:1-5; 3:14; 2 Cor 5:12;
10:7,10,12), and they were being influenced by the "super-apostles" who
exploited them financially (2 Cor 2:17; 11:7-12, 20). Paul needed to distin-
guish his ministry from that of his rivals. Hence, due to this factor and also
because the Corinthians' spiritual immaturity prevented them from fully
appreciating the gospel's divine origin, he may have refused to receive their
financial support.^
The apostle's ministry, then, is not really opposed to Seneca's cycle
of giving, receiving, and returning favors. As long as a congregation is
mat'ure enough to recognize God as the ultimate gift giver, Paul appears
to accept the church's personal gifts. For Paul, it seems that the role of the
Corinthian's p ^ r o n -b e n e fa c to r is reserved for God, and the apostle's role
is to be God's broker.43

40. See Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the
Corinthians (WUNT 2/23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 218-58; cf. pp. 1-21.
41. And yet even though Paul accepts money from the Philippians, his uneasiness about
it may be implied by his stressing his material dependence on God and independence from the
Philippians (Phil 4:11-13), as pointed out by John Reumann, Philippians (AB 33B; New Haven,
CT: Vale University Press, 2008) 704.
42. See David E. Briones, Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach (Ph.D. diss..
University of Durham, 2011). Briones argues against the idea that Paul refuses support from the
Corinthians because of their attempt to be his patron. Contrast, e.g., John Chow, Patronage ‫س‬
Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992). Por Briones (Paul's Financial Policy, 327-29), Paul has a consistent two-step approach
toward financial support from congregations. At stage one, when first evangelizing a city, he
refuses to receive money from the new congregation; at stage two, after he leaves the city,
having established a mature-thinking church, he can receive money from them.
43. Similarly, Briones (ibid., 326) views Paul as "a mutual broker of divine commodity.‫״‬
218 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

This leads to another point that Paul and Seneca have in common:
they both view God in the role of benefactor toward creation. Similar to
Seneca, the apostle claims that the Creator provides humans with the gift
of creation that itself attests to the power and divinity of its Maker. Despite
this benefit, they fail to recognize God or express gratitude by honoring the
Creator (Rom 1:19-21; cf. 2 Esdr 8:60). Paul, however, adds the benefit of
God's new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), which leads ‫؛‬٠ eternal
salvation for those who walk in faith and gratitude toward God.
Differently from Paul, Seneca as a Stoic philosopher understood God
as a fiery substance that pervades the world. As the active reason behind
nature, the deity acts on the passive principle of matter. Seneca considers
God a father figure, and yet he could speak about God and the gods inter-
changeably.44 Stoics could identify Zeus as God without denying the value
of other deities who work in nature, and perhaps Seneca's view is similar.45
In harmony with the Stoic idea of living rationally and in accordance with
nature, Seneca believed that virtuous living becomes a primary good to be
sought.46 Ideal humans are to follow and obey God, and if God is benefi-
cent te God's creatures, humans also ought to be beneficent and exhibit the
virtue of gratitude.4^ This type of ethical pursuit is not entirely philosoph-
ical but social, serving as a compass for relational cohesion on several levels
of society, especially with the upper echelons Seneca targeted.^
Paul presents God as the model of generosity for sending Christ. God
is also the one who bestows χάρις to the Corinthians, and the Corinthians
are to respond with χάρις to God in the form of thanksgiving (2 Cor 1:9-11;
2:14; 8:16; 9:15). Christ is viewed as the exemplary giver: he became "poor"
through his incarnation and death so that he might make many of the
Corinthians spiritually "rich" (2 Cor 8:9; cf. 9:15). Through this teaching,
the Corinthians are prompted to act with generosity and complete their
contributions for the Jerusalem saints.

Examples of Gratitude
Apart from believers giving thanks, Paul and other NT writers seem to
agree that receiving benefits requires obligations to reciprocate in practical
ways.49 Believers show this gratitude to God by giving generously to others
(1 Thess 3:12; 5:15; Matt 5:43-48; 1 Pet 2:15), pursuing a life of good deeds

44. See 1 N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (NovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 35-38.
45. On Zeus as God, cf. Johan c . Thom, "Stoicism," in Dictionary ofN ew Testament Back-
grounds (ed. c . A. Evans and s. E. ?orter; Downers Grove, 1L: InterVarsity, 2000) 113942.
46. Cf. Terence Paige, "Philosophy," in DPL 713-18, here, p. 715. On Seneca's De Benificiis
as consistent with Stoicism, see Brad Inwood, "Politics and Paradox in Seneca's De Beneficiis,"
in Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy (ed. Andre Laks and
Malcolm Schofield; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 241-65.
47. On the Stoic pursuit of God, see Jolm M. Rist, "Seneca and Stoic Orthodoxy," ANRW
2:1993-2012, Principat 36.3 here, p. 2012.
48. See Griffin, "Roman Society," 92-113. Eor obligation on various social levels, see
Ben. 2.91; 3.28.1; 3.29-37.
49. Neyrey, "God, Benefactor," 487-88, distinguishes "thank you" from the Greek way
of expressing gratitude through praise and commitment.
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 219

(2 Cor 9:11-12; Matt 5:16; 1 ?et 2:11-12), using spiritual gifts for the benefit
of the church (1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:7-16; 1 ?et 4:10-11), bearing witness ‫؛‬٠
the honor of the D iv in e Benefactor (Eph 1:6; 1 Pet 2:10), and rendering their
loyalty, trust, and obedience to the Benefactor (1 Cor 6:12-20; Gal 2:20-21;
?hil 1:29-30). ‫ص‬On the other hand, disloyalty, found in philosophical pa‫־‬
tronage, Hellenistic Judaism, and the early Christ-followers, suggests un-
faithfulness to a former patron and loyalty to a new patron.51
What we are noticing, then, is that gratitude as a response to divine
benefaction is exemplified in a number of ways, not the least of which
includes loyalty to the gift giver. This issue becomes all the more pointed
when we consider that God's saving grace in 2 Corinthians was never in-
tended to be void of all self-interest and the expectation of a positive re-
sponse. God expects those who are being saved in Christ to honor God and
remain loyal and faithful subjects, ?aul exemplifies this gratitude not only
by thanking God but by returning Christ's love by living in faithfulness
to Christ, and motivated by love he proclaims the gospel message about
Christ to others (2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Cor 9:16-17).
This type of reciprocation seems comparable to Seneca's idea of love
as the proper response to divine benefactors (Ben. 4.19.1). Unlike Seneca,
however, who contrasts love of the gods with fear of the gods in this
context, Paul considers both the fear of Christ related to judgment day
(2 Cor 5:10-11) and the love of Christ related to his atoning death (5:14-15)
as “ for his own ministry. 52 In any case, the apostle stands in
agreement with Seneca by viewing gratitude to deity in a manner that
exceeds merely giving thanks.
Paul expresses his gratitude by proclaiming the gospel about Christ,
which resembles the weaker party's appreciation for a favor received by a
powerful benefactor in Seneca's response, "1 will never be able to repay to
you my gratitude, but definitely 1will not cease from declaring everywhere
that I am unable to repay it" (Ben. 2.24.4). Our apostle engages in the com-
mon response of the beneficiary who is expected to honor his benefactor by
promoting the benefactor's reputation (cf. 4.3.2; Plutarch, Mor. 379D; Philo,
Plant. 125-31; Lucius, Metam. 13,15). Although the gift of Christ and salva-
tion cannot be repaid to God, this benefit is still viewed as placing believers
under certain obligations. An ultimate sense of honor, allegiance, love for
Christ, and living one's lito for his sake would pose the natural counterpart
to the oaths clients make to benefactors.

Love and Moral Obligation in Light ofRomans

Paul does not flesh outw hat it means to love and five tor Christ in 2 Cor 5:14-
15, but such notions are further developed in his letter to the Romans. God's

50. In agreement with deSilva, Honor, Patronage, 14148. Neyrey, "God, Benefactor," 486,
489, reco^rizes similar forms of reciprocity to God (e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.212; Philo, Plant. 126).
51. See Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion, 199-250.
52. Pace Engberg-Pedersen ("Gift giving," 22), who claims that both Paul and Seneca
contrast the two.
220 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

love is communicated through the gift of the spirit related to the believer's
conversion (Rom 5:5). Love is also owed to others as an ethical obligation
on the basis of the great commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself
(Rom 13:8-10). Unlike human benefactors, the divine Benefactor's love is
demonstrated by the divine choice to reveal this love, bestow the gift of
the Spirit, and make unworthy recipients righteous through the death of
Christ (5:5-8,15-17). Barclay rightly says that those who are in Christ are
now "under grace" in obedience and service to God, which manifests itself
in s^ctification and has as its goal eternal life (6:14-23). When that goal
is completed, then what was once an "unfitting" gift on account of the
unworthy recipients will become a fitting gift.53 We might add that this
positive end will take place so long as the gift of the Christ is not repudiated
by these recipients either willfully or through a lifestyle that contradicts
the core of what it means to be Christ's followers.
Now that they are "under grace," the faithful in Christ are under ob-
ligation, "to which Paul calls for willing assent to serve the purposes of
grace by yielding their bodies as [spiritual] weapons employed by the God
and Father of lesus Christ, serving their fellows in righteousness."54 This
obligation includes their yielding to and being led by God's Spirit. It is
through yielding to the Spirit that they wifi resist works of the "flesh" that
lead to eternal death (8:12-14).55 In this manner, the concept of obligation
is no longer limited to whatever society deems the case regarding human
benefactors and patrons. Rather, believers must relocate the concept of
obligation in terms of living for Christ's sake, and they are to interpret it
in light of being controlled by God's Spirit. It is through this reconfigura-
tion that they can learn how to walk in obedience before God and perform
works of love. The extent of this obligation to the Benefactor spans the en-
tire length of the believers' life until the future resurrection of their bodies
takes place and the new creation is fully realized (8:15-27).
Although more implicit in the Corinthian correspondence this type of
obligation is no less present. Now that God has granted them Christ and
salvation, believers must assent to the Spirit's work in their bodies both
collectively and individually (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 7:34; 2 Cor 3:6, 18;

53. Barclay, "Last Judgment," ٧٠

54. Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermenela; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006) 412.
55. C. E. B. Cranfield (Romans 1-8 [ICC; rev. ed. London: T. & T. Clark, 2001] 394) writes
regarding Rom 8:12 that "The position of negative [in οφείλεται έσμεν ού τη σαρκ'ι του κατά σάρκα
ζην ] strongly suggests that Paul intended to continue with something like άλλα τφ πνεύματι του
κατά πνεύμα ζην, but broke off in order to insert the warning of V. 13a, and then, after adding
a natural complement to V. 13a, failed to complete the sentence begun in V. 12." On Paul and
obligation, see further όφειλάτης (Rom 1:14; 15:27), οφείλω (Rom 15:1, 27; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13), and
άφείλημα (Rom 4:4). The latter is contrasted with the unearned gift of righteousness bestowed on
Abraham and pertaining to redemption that has come about through Christ. On this thought,
Neyrey ("God, Benefactor," 492) writes, "it would [be] utterly dishonorable for a mortal to
make a claim on God or to consider God in one's debt, which is what happens when mortals
interpret their interaction with God in terms of balanced reciprocity." This is different than the
converse in which humans are the ones in debt to God's spirit (8:12).
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 221

7:1), and they must live morally and perform deeds of love (1 Cor 13:1-14:1;
2 Cor 2:8; 6:6; 8:7-8, 24) until the new creation is fully present when the
future glorification of their bodies takes place (2 Cor 4:14,17; 5:1, 5-9,17).

The Benefactor's Grace and Self-Interest

DeSilva suggests from Seneca two differentiated sets of considerations are

expected depending on whether a person is benefactor or recipient. The
benefactors are to exercise generosity and give for the sake of giving to
others rather than for personal advantage (Ben. 1.1.3, 9; 2.11.2; 3.15); the
recipients are to show gratitude to foe giver and never forget what was
received (1.1.3; 2 .2 4 .4 ).If Paul follows this pattern, then he assumes this
issue from "below," from foe recipients' point of view as being obligated
to show gratitude to God as Benefactor. A better explanation, however, is
that the giver maintains some self-interest. Seneca admits to using hyper-
bole earlier in his discussion regarding the attitude of the ideal benefactor:
"Certain things we teach in an exaggerated form so that they result in due
measure. When we say 'He (the donor) ought not to remember (giving a
benefit)', we really mean 'He ought not to trumpet it, nor to boast, nor to
give offence'.. . . It is to quell excessive and reproachful memory of it that
we have told the man who gives to forget" (7.22.1-2).57 The benefactor can
seek to be satisfied by the recipient's gratitude and effort at attempting to
reciprocate the benefit after all (7.14.4-5).
Gift giving for Seneca can serve the interests of the giver. For Paul,
the divine Benefactor's gift giving, as we have already noticed, does not
contradict this. The gift of Christ and love for the creatures are graciously
initiated by God and undeserved, but as Engberg-Pedersen agrees, the
Christ-event "shows that God staged his relationship with human beings
precisely in the form of a gift in order to achieve his own aims."^ As God's
dealings with humanity in Rom 1:18-32, 2:23-24, and 8: ‫ ﻫ ﻮ‬suggest, these
include an interest in God's creatures honoring God and conforming to the
divine will. Divine gift giving serves aims such as these; human responses
of faithfulness (π(στις) and love are means of reciprocating the gift and
thus fulfilling the divine will. The magnificent love and grace of God in
the giving of Christ expects a response, so much that no one "acts rightly,
then, if he does not respond to that act in k in d .. . . Any other response will
amount to annulling God's gift." ‫و ﺀ‬
If grace in 2 Cor 6:1 refers to the gift of salvation initiated by God,
grounded in Christ's death, and given to the Corinthians who are now in
Christ, Paul's expectation would seem to be that the Corinthians are now
under obligation to respond to their Benefactor with gratitude in the form

56. D. A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews

(Grand Rap‫؛‬ds: Eerdmans, 2000) 224.
57. Citation from Griffin, ‫״‬Roman Society," 94.
58. Engberg-Pedersen, "Gift giving," 28.
59. Ibid., 41.
222 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

of love, loyalty, and faith(fulness) comparable with Paul's own gratitude

(5:14-15). Their grateful attitude should be evident by their willingness
to honor God in this manner. Authentic gratitude would also seem to in-
elude positive responses to Paul who operates as God's mouthpiece to the
Corinthians and ambassador sent on Christ's behalf (5:20a). ^ re o v e r , they
are to honor God, who empowers them with the Spirit and r e t i r e s their
sanctification; they must give account of their deeds performed in their
earthly bodies at the tribunal of Christ (5:10; cf. 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20). As
such, their conduct of vice-doing and disobedience must be fully aban-
doned (2 Cor 10:6; 12:20-21; 1 Cor 15:34; cf. 2 Cor 6:14-7:1).60 Paul r e t i r e s
of the Corinthians what he expects from all his churches: they should walk
in a manner pleasing before God and be controlled by God's Spirit in order
to live in obedience and holiness (1 Thess 2:12; 4:1-3; Gal 5:16-6:2; Rom 1:5;
8:2-16; Phil 1:27; Col 2:6; cf. Col 2:6; Eph 4:1-4; 5:1-2).
Paul's view of gift giving as retaining some self-interest appears to be
quite compatible within the framework of Greco-Roman social norms that
obligate the reciprocation of gratitude to the benefactor for gifts received.

Ingratitude toward Benefactors and Its Repercussions

If gratitude is the proper response to benefactors, Seneca considers in-

gratitude to be the same as committing a crime. It is viewed in terms of
dishonor, insult, wrongdoing, and the most common of all vices (Ben. 1.1.2;
1.2.1; 1.4.3; 2.25.3; 3.6.1; 7.16.141.10.4). Indeed, he considers it the worst
vice: "There will always be murderers, tyrants, thieves, adulterers, abduc-
tors, temple robbers, and traitors, but lower in rank than all these is the
ungrateful (infra omnia ista ingratus est), unless it be that all these come
from the ungrateful, without which hardly any great misdeed has grown"
(1.10.4). Among various types of ingrates are those who deny receiving a
benefit, those who pretend not to receive a benefit, those who fail to re-
ciprocate a benefit, and worst of all, those who have forgotten a benefit.
The others at least have opportunity to change, but not someone who has
forgotten receiving a benefit (3.1.34).
Seneca claims that the causes of ingratitude are as follows: (1) too high
an opinion of ourselves, which results in thinking we deserve the good
things we get; (2) greed or wanting more (ambition), which often leads to
grumbling and complaints instead of giving thanks; and (3) jealousy, the
comparison that someone received more than 1 did (2.26.1-29.1).
Ingratitude involves not only hum an-human relationships but also
human-divine mlationships. Seneca affirms that people show ingratitude
when they do not recognize the benefits the deity gives them via creation,
and those who grumble (queror) about natural gifts given to them by the
gods are considered unjust (2.28.4-29.1; 4.8.2-3; cf. 2.28.4; 2.29.34; 2.30.1).
Also, the gods are angered by humans who do not repay their earthly

60. Regardless of whether or not Paul wrote 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, the passage rhetorically
discourages the auditors from assimilation and committing vices.
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace

benefactors (6.30.1; 6.40.2). Recipients who show a lack of gratitude to ei-

ther human or divine benefactors commit injustice and sacrilege against
the three Graces (1.4.4). Ingratitude breaks their circular link of bestowing,
receiving, and reciprocating gifts, and this dishonors the heavenly beings.
Although, unlike other crimes, ingratitude escapes human punishment,
the ungrateful will still be accountable to the gods (3.6.2). They suffer the
punishment of losing all perception of delightful experiences associated
with benefaction and reciprocity, they are tortured by their conscience for
thwarting a benefit, and they remain fearful of the gods, who witness all
ingratitude (3.17.2-3).
Seneca relates a story in which a powerful benefactor, Philip of Mace-
don, punished a client when the client's wickedness was exposed (4.37.14).
The story exemplifies how circumstances might prompt a benefactor to
take back a gift. Philip, originally showing favor to one of his most distin-
guished soldiers, ends up punishing him and refuses to give the unworthy
man what he might give to a worthy person (4.35.3). The story teaches that,
in some cases, and despite what Seneca says elsewhere (1.10.5; 7.31-32), the
promise of bestowing favors can be justifiably broken when they are given
to ungrateful individuals who commit evil deeds (cf. 4.34.3-35.5).
Various ancient sources confirm that Seneca is not alone in his expecta-
tions regarding the obligation of reciprocity for benefactions ‫ س‬negative
consequences for ingratitude (e.g., Aeschylus, Prom. 975; Epicurus, Sent.
Vat. 69; Ps.-Heraclitus, Ep. 3; Lucian, Pise. 5; Judg 8:35 LXX; 1 Sam 25:2-14,
21, 39; 1 Kgs 9:10-14). Pseudo-Libanius teaches that those who do not re-
pay their benefactors become the subject of letters of blame, reproach, and
maligning (Ep. 53, 64, 80). Cicero advises that in order to win favor with an
audience in court, orators should draw attention both to their defendant's
good character and the opponent's unworthy character, including the lat-
ter's ingratitude (De Or. 2.79.321-22). For Cicero, r^urning generosity is
not an option for morally good persons but an obligation; in fact, there is
nothing more imperative than for these people to demonstrate their grati-
tude (De Off. l.xv.47-48; cf. l.xiv.42).
Regarding ingratitude to deities, when discussing human arrogance
in Greco-Roman poetry, H. V. Canter references a number of sources to
suggest that a lack of proper regard for toe gods includes "want of appre-
ciation for the blessings, gifts, plans, or will of the gods."61 Moreover, some
type of punishment would be expected for the ungrateful. Plutarch writes
that Fortune will chastise ingrates (Plutarch, Mor. 470C-D; 610E; Phoc. 1.3;
c. Gracch. 16.5), and Dio Chrysostom says that those who show ingratitude
will be excluded from future favors (Or. 31.37-38, 65).62
We can adduce from Seneca and these sources that both divine and
human benefactors were to be repaid by toose who received toeir gifts. To

61. H. V. Carter, "¡11 w ill ‫ ﺀه‬the Gods in Greek and Latin ?oetry," Classical Philology 32
(1937) 131-143 (esp. p. 136).
62. On Chrysostom's point, see deSilva, Honor, Patronage, 112-13.
224 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

be sure, rec‫؛‬procity in focsc ca^cs did not amount to h e b^eficiary pay-

ing back the benefactor tit-for-tat as though the iatter were of equal status
with the former. Expressions of gratitude in the form of praise, honor, loy-
alty, and service were expected instead, and to neglect such things branded
the recipient an ingrate whose unjust behavior in this regard would not
escape punishment.

In g r a t i t u d e a m o n g the C o r in t h ia n s

Because Paul operates within a gift-giving system that is generally com-

patible with that of Seneca and the social world of his time, we might
expect that he, too, condemns ingratitude. This appears to be the case in
2 Cor 6:1. A failure to respond to God's benevolent salvation with tangible
expressions of gratitude such as honor, loyalty, and love would be tanta-
mount to the Corinthians' receiving the gift of saving grace in vain.
The causes of ingratitude mentioned earlier by Seneca include high
opinions of oneself, greed, grumbling, and jealousy. Paul makes these
same issues explicit when addressing the congregation's shortcomings.
He reprimands their high-mindedness (1 Cor 4:6-10, 18-19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4;
2 Cor 5:12; 10:5; 12:20), greed (1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:1-10; 2 Cor 2:17), and jeal-
ousy (1 Cor 3:1-3; 2 Cor 10:10; 12:20). The concept of grumbling, which
stems from a complaint against Paul's leadership, is likewise a typical ex-
pression of ingratitude, and Paul interprets this as vice (1 Cor 10:10). As a
result, the Corinthians exemplify the most common characteristics associ-
ated with ingratitude according to Seneca. It is rather likely, then, that Paul
interprets their conduct as ingratitude even though he does not actually
use the term αχάριστος in the Corinthian correspondence.^
Among major relational setbacks is that certain members have the
propensity to assimilate to the social values-and elitism of outsiders . ‫ئ‬
This problem seems to have contributed to the high-minded and haughty
attitude of some of the members as they gravitate toward social promi-
nence and eloquent, sophist-like speakers whose outward appearance is
commendable according to worldly standards (e.g., 1 Cor 2:1-5; 4:6-21;
2 Cor 5:12; 10:10,17-18). Paul's opponents, whom he tackles more directly
in 2 Cor 10-13, seem to have exploited this Corinthian tendency, and they
are influencing the congregation against him. Their identity as ύπερλίαν
άπόστολοι (11:5) who establish their authenticity as ministers with letters
of recommendation and eloquent speeches, is quite evident in these lat-
ter chapters (e.g., 2 Cor 10:6-16; 11:2-15). We also find glimpses of their
character and activities in earlier portions of the canonical letter (e.g., 2:17,
3:1; 5:12).65Their influence helps stimulate the Corinthians' complaints and
negative perception of Paul.

63. The term appears only in the disputed ?auline letter o£ 2 Tim 3:2. But see also Rom 1:21.
64. See Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, on the societal pressures the congregation faced.
65. Jerry L. Sumney ('Servants ofSatan', 'False Brothers',‫ س‬Other Opponents ofPaul [JSNT-
Sup 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 130-33) argues convincingly that the op-
ponents in 2 Cor 1-9 and 10-13 are the same.
 O r o p e z a : The Expectation ofGrace 225

The Corinthians may have considered themseives to he faithful fol-

lowers of Christ and rendered thanks to God for their salvation, but Paul
sees things differently.God worked through Paul as God's chosen in-
strument to proclaim to them the gospel that saves them (e.g., 1 Cor 4:15;
2 Cor 12:14; cf. Acts 18:l18‫ ־‬a). The apostle might assume that an implicit
favor of conformity to his message is owed to him as their rescuer (cf.
Phlm 19-20; Sir 29:17). As Christ's ambassador to the Gentiles and Corin-
thians, Paul also stiffers numerous hardships in obedience to his calling
to proclaim foe gospel to them (2 Cor 1:8-11; 4:7-12; 6:3-10; 11:22-12:10).
In return, the Corinthians make accusations against his apostleship (1:12;
2:17), foil to walk in holiness (1 Cor 6:9-20; 2 Cor 12:20-21), and are now
beginning to adhere to the gospel of his opponents (5:12; 11:2-15). They are
not properly reciprocating grace for grace; they lack a sense of obligation in
response to the indescribable gift God has granted them. In essence, they
are showing ingratitude by being disloyal to Paul's teachings, and they
are dishonoring God by their misdeeds. Thus, Paul has to urge them to be
reconciled to God and not to receive grace in vain (5:20; 6:1).

In g r a t i t u d e ' s P o t e n t i a l O u t c o m e

What might be the final result of the Corinthians' ingratitude? Despite the
salvation they originally embraced from the divine Benefactor through
Paul's message about Christ, they are in danger of forfeiting this gift and
falling into apostasy in 2 Cor 6:1. The apostle never explains, however, how
this forfeiture might take place in their situation.
One option is that he has in mind the eventual outcome of their vice-
doing (2 Cor 12:20-21), which might exclude them from God's kingdom
(cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10; 10:1-12; Gal 5:19-21; Rom 8:13). If so, then it seems that
through persistent vices the congregants might repudiate salvation even
if they never verbally renoimce Christ. This view takes seriously the idea
that, if one makes verbal confessions of faith in Christ, one must also sur-
render one's life to Christ's lordship and operate in love and obedience to
the divine will (e.g., Gal 5:14-23; Rom 1:5; 13:8-10; cf. Matt 7:21-23; 22:37-
40; Luke 6:46). If Paul is consistent with Seneca on this point, ingratitude
would be among foe vices the Corinthians are committing.
A second possibility is that Paul in te n d s to "clean house," as it were,
during his third visit to Corinth, and similar to the fornicator whom he
ostracizes from the congregation in 1 Cor 5, he will not "spare" the instiga-
tors who are railing accusations against him (2 Cor 13:1-5). Once expelled,
Paul believes foe wrongdoers are handed over to Satan and presumably
excluded from being "in Christ" (1 Cor 5:5).
A third possibility of failed grace in 6:1 is that the apostle fears what
he makes more explicit in the later chapters. If the Corinthians refuse to re‫־‬
ciprocate gratitude for the gift of salvation in Christ by honoring God and

66. ALhough he prases their compliance to discipline an individual who had offended
him (cf. 2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:4-16), their conduct in other portions of the canonical letter is far from
commendable.
226 Bulletinfor Biblical Research 24.2

Paul, and they continue listening to the apostle's opponents, they will he led
astray into following another }esus and a different gospel (2 Cor 11:2-4).
The apostle will claim that these rivals are ministers of Satan, whose final
end will he according to their deceptive deeds (11:13-15). At the tribunal of
Christ, these individuals and their followers, it seems, will receive retribu-
tion as their reward for deception and wrongful deeds (5:10). ٧
A combination of these options is also possible. Whatever the case may
be, there are dire consequences the Corinthians would face if they did not
reciprocate God's grace in positive, tangible ways.

C o n c l u s io n

Our study of 2 Corinthians has led to some important conclusions about

Paul's perception of grace and ingratitude. First, it has been argued that
Paul and the Corinthians understand grace within the framework of the
gift-giving system prevalent throughout their social setting. This condi-
tioning is reflected in their perception of God as divine Benefactor.
Second, they assume that grace as a gift ought to be reciprocated. The
gift of salvation, that is, saving grace, is initiated by God through foe Christ
event. This gift is given to unworthy recipients. However, this grace is not
completely void of self-interest but has divine aims in mind. God expects
the unfit recipients to be transformed through s^ctification and continue
to the full realization of eternal lifo. The recipients of salvation are now
under obligation to show gratitude, which is expressed by honoring God
in word and deed, loyalty, f^th(fulness) to God and the gospel message
about Christ, and yielding to the promptings of God's spirit to walk in
holiness and perform works of love. Saving grace expects no less than the
complete surrender of their way of living to follow Christ (2 Cor 5:14-21).
Third, ingratitude invites the return of dire consequences. Without the
return of gratitude, the Corinthian recipients are in danger of forfeiting
saving grace (6:1-2). Ingratitude is associated with vice, dishonors God,
and makes the Corinthians more vulnerable to following the false gospel of
Paul's opponents and ultimately showing themselves to be disloyal to the
gospel proclaimed by Paul. With the benefaction model intact, the notion
of saving and losing grace is not so paradoxical after all. The thought of a
divine benefactor expecting a return for grace would not ring foreign to
fo e C orin th ian s' ears.

67. T© be sure, many ap©states will be exp©sed pri©r to Judgment Day, but certain rebel-
li©ns, it seems, will not be exposed until that event (1 Cor 4:3-5; cf. 1 Tim 5:24-25).
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.