¹ Belk, Russell W., “The Perfect Gift,” in Otnes, Cele and Beltramini, Richard F., eds., Gift Giving: A Research Anthology (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1996), p. 59Google Scholar.

² 1) Sacrifice. The giver exhibits selfless generosity and commitment to the beloved through their willingness to make an extraordinary sacrifice. 2) Altruism. The perfect gift displays the giver's concern for the recipient's well‐being apart from self‐serving egoism or utilitarian motivation. 3) Luxury. The perfect gift is not a necessity filling lower‐order needs; it falls within the category of extravagance, being a “tangible demonstration of the richness and depth of the love the giver feels toward the recipient.” 4) Appropriateness. The perfect gift is unique and specifically suited for the recipient. It reveals that the giver is attentive to the recipient's wishes and desires without being told outright what they are and shows a profound understanding of and empathy toward the recipient. 5) Surprise. A gift that is requested negates its value. The perfect gift is given sans obligation, its spontaneity revealing its altruistic motive. 6) Delight. Despite being extravagant, the perfect gift carries no indication of bribery, expectation, or manipulation. It is entirely outside the realm of a reciprocal transaction, seeking only to bring delight to the recipient, asking for nothing in return. Ibid., pp. 62‐67.

³ Ibid., p. 60.

⁴ Ibid., p. 61.

⁵ Camenisch, Paul F., “Gift and Gratitude in Ethics,” Journal of Religious Ethics 9.1 (Spring 1981), p. 2Google Scholar.

⁶ Mauss, Marcel, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, Halls, W.D., trans. (Routledge, 1990), p. 3Google Scholar.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid., pp. 7‐8.

⁹ Ibid., p. 12.

¹⁰ “All these institutions express one fact alone, one social system one precise state of mind: everything – food, women, children, property, talismans, land, labour services, priestly functions, and ranks – is there for passing on, and for balancing accounts. Everything passes to and fro as if there were a constant exchange of spiritual matter, including things and men, between clans and individuals, distributed between social ranks, the sexes, and the generations.” Mauss, The Gift, p. 14.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 12.

¹² Ibid. There are two aspects of hau which I have chosen to exclude here because, in my estimation, they are distortions instead of central aspects of spiritual animation. The first is the idea that the hau of an object is always trying to get back to its place of origin. To retain the so‐called gift would be to put oneself in opposition to a powerful spiritual force and risk great personal peril. The second is the idea that by giving a gift, the donor is able to exert magical or religious power over the recipient. Because the recipient is thought to accept part of the donor's soul by accepting the gift, the object becomes a medium of control, a means whereby the donor takes up residence in the recipient's life and influences it. These two aspects suffuse the ritual with occult powers which are at cross‐purposes to the intent of gift, serving to enslave and curse the recipient instead of delight or bless them.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 72‐73.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 73.

¹⁵ Cheal, David, “Gifts in Contemporary North America,” in Otnes, Cele and Beltramini, Richard F., eds., Gift Giving: A Research Anthology (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1996), p. 86Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Sherry, John F. Jr., McGrath, Mary Ann, and Levy, Sidney J., “The Dark Side of Gift,” Journal of Business Research 28 (1993), p. 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Derrida, Jacques, Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money, Kamul, Peggy, trans. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 12.

¹⁹ “From the moment the gift would appear as gift … it would be engaged in a symbolic, sacrificial, or economic structure that would annul the gift in the ritual circle of the debt.” Ibid., p. 24.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 14.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid., p. 29.

²³ Marion, Jean‐Luc, “The Reason of the Gift,” in Leask, Ian and Cassidy, Eoin, eds., Mackinlay, Shane and de Warren, Nicolas, trans., Givenness and God: Questions of Jean‐Luc Marion (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), pp. 106‐7Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 112.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 115.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ John 3:16; John 8:19.

²⁸ John 14:9.

²⁹ Marion, “The Reason of the Gift,” p. 122.

³⁰ Ibid., p. 124.

³¹ Ibid., p. 125.

³² Interestingly, feminist Genevieve Vaughan identifies largesse and gift with motherhood, stating that “the logic of gift giving is a maternal economic logic, the logic of the distribution of goods and services directly to needs.” Vaughan, Genevieve, “Introduction,” in Vaughan, Genevieve, ed., Women and the Gift Economy: A Radically Different Worldview is Possible (Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education, 2007), p. 7Google Scholar.

³³ Milbank, John, “Can a Gift be Given? Prolegomena to a Future Trinitarian Metaphysic,” Modern Theology 11:1 (January 1995), p. 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ This is reminiscent of Hans Urs von Balthasar's notion of the divine author writing with the audience already in mind, in some sense, creating the audience through his writing.

³⁵ Milbank, “Can a Gift be Given?” p. 124.

³⁶ 1 Corinthians 13:4‐8a, NRSV.

³⁷ “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (ekenosev), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.” Philippians 2:5‐8, NRSV.

³⁸ von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Theo‐Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 4, The Action, Harrison, Graham, trans. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), pp. 323‐24Google Scholar.

³⁹ In the Middle Ages, the Dominicans and the Franciscans debated whether the Incarnation would have taken place had humanity not sinned. John Duns Scotus (Franciscan) believed that the incarnation was part of God's intention from the beginning. Thomas Aquinas (Dominican) held that the appearance of Jesus Christ in history was a response to sin, necessary for atonement, though he allowed that the Incarnation could have been viewed as the consummation of God's glory before sin entered the world. Both views were eventually accepted by the Church as having biblical support, and therefore within the realm of orthodoxy. See Aquinas, Thomas, “The Fitness of the Incarnation,” Article III and “The Act of Faith,” Article VII, Summa Theologiae, Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans. (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947)Google Scholar. See also Benedict, Pope XVI, “John Duns Scotus,” in Great Christian Thinkers: From the Early Church Through the Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 301‐5Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ 1 John 4:8.

⁴¹ Balthasar, Theo‐Drama, vol. 4, p. 325.

⁴² “This primal kenosis makes possible all other kenotic movements of God into the world; they are simply its consequences.” Ibid., p. 331.

⁴³ “For since He Whom God has sent speaks the words of God [proclaims God's own message], God does not give Him His Spirit sparingly or by measure, but boundless is the gift God makes of His Spirit! The Father loves the Son and has given (entrusted, committed) everything into His hand.” John 3:34‐35. The Amplified Bible ©1987 by The Zondervan Corporation and The Lockman Foundation.

⁴⁴ Song of Solomon 2:13b‐14, NRSV.

⁴⁵ Hosea 2. The depiction of Christ and the Church as husband and wife in Ephesians 5 contains both desire and self‐sacrifice.

⁴⁶ John 16:27.

⁴⁷ 1 Corinthians 16:22, NRSV.

⁴⁸ John 11:3, 36; John 2:20. The concept of mutuality or collaboration between divine and human can also be found in the idea of co‐working (synergeo) when Paul writes that “we are fellow workmen (joint promoters, laborers together) with and for God.” 1 Corinthians 3:9, The Amplified Bible. See also 2 Corinthians 6:1: “Labouring together [as God's fellow workers] with Him then, we beg of you not to receive the grace of God in vain…” The Amplified Bible.

⁴⁹ Other stories include Abraham negotiating with God about how many righteous souls (from 50 down to 10) it would take to save Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16‐33) and the account of Moses being commissioned by YHWH to bring the Israelites out of Egypt. Here we find a lengthy dialogue between God and Moses in which Moses questions his ability to do the job and YHWH provides reassurances (concessions?) such as a miracle and a spokesperson to do the talking (Exodus 3‐4).

⁵⁰ Exodus 32:1‐14.

⁵¹ “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” Exodus 33:11, NRSV.