Paul Tillich and Paul Ricoeur on the Meaning of 'Philosophical Theology'
PAUL AND THE JERUSALEM COLLECTION
-
Upload
gardner-webb -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of PAUL AND THE JERUSALEM COLLECTION
!!
GARDNER(WEBB!UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!
THE!JERUSALEM!COLLECTION:!PAUL’S!METHOD!OF!RECONCILIATION!AMONG!!
JEWISH!AND!GENTILE!CHRISTIANS!!!!!
!!
SUBMITTED!TO!DR.!MCCONNELL!!
FOR!PARTIAL!FULFILLMENT!OF!A!!
MASTER!OF!DIVINITY!!
DSNT!101A!!!!!!BY!!
MICHAEL!HEREDIA!!!!!!
!BOILING!SPRINGS,!NC!
!DECEMBER!2013!
! 1
Introduction
In our contemporary Christian culture, tithes and offerings are viewed as a financial gift
to benefit the church and the needy. However, this act of generosity has been diluted of its true
significance over time. Many present-day congregants give to meet the standard ten percent
requirement. Unlike contemporary giving, the giving of resources in the biblical period was
viewed from a much different perspective. Despite various research endeavors, a consensus
regarding the motivations of ancient giving has yet to be obtained.
An ancient form of giving can be seen in the collection for Jerusalem throughout the
Apostle Paul’s ministry. In Gal 2:10, Paul recalls the request made by the church in Antioch to
“remember the poor”. This account, when paralleled with Acts 11:27-30, is often viewed as the
beginning of the collection. However, some scholars argue the collection was not a product of
the request in Gal 2:10 and Paul did not facilitate this collection.1 In order to understand the
purpose of the collection, one must explore the various lenses through which it can be
interpreted. These lenses include eschatology, obligation, ecumenism, and material relief. I will
maintain the traditional interpretation that Gal 2:10 and Acts 11:27-30 mark the beginning of
Paul’s Jerusalem collection. Before further investigating the collection, certain questions must be
addressed: What are the cultural standards that led Paul to invest so much energy into this
collection? What was so important about giving support to the Jerusalem church? Given this
background, I will argue that Paul, under ecumenical obligation from the church in Antioch, uses
the Jerusalem collection as a vehicle of reconciliation between the Jewish and Gentile Christian
communities through civic benefaction and persuasive rhetoric.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 34. !
! 2
Ways to Interpret the Jerusalem Collection
The Jerusalem Collection, as described by David J. Downs, can be understood in four
ways: an eschatological event, an obligation, an ecumenical offering, and a material relief.2
Typically, scholars believe that Paul is motivated by only one of the four ways. However,!I!
suggest that they are not mutually exclusive. Instead, there is a correlation between!an obligation
and an ecumenical offering, which yields an ecumenical obligation.
An Eschatological Collection
There are multiple interpretations on the collection as an eschatological event, two of
which come from Johannes Munck and Burkhard Beckheuer.3 Munck argues that Paul’s
collection has prophetic connotations. Referencing Isa 2:2-4, Isa 60:5, and Mic 4:1-2, he
connects Paul’s collaboration with the Gentiles and the prophecies that predict the last days.4
Downs responds to this theory by claiming that Munck does not explain how the traditions are
present in Paul’s discourse on the collection.5 He notes that Burkhard Beckheuer joins Munck in
viewing the Jerusalem collection as an eschatological event, because he understands the
collection as a completion of the Third Isaiah vision. This is exemplified throughout Rom 9-11,
which Beckheuer claims is full of references from Third Isaiah.6 Likewise, Mark Laing
concludes that in Paul’s speech to Agrippa (Acts 26:1-7), he was aware that his journey was the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 Downs, The Offering, 3-26. 3 Ibid., 4-5. 4 Ibid., 4. 5 The use of evidence from Isa 2:2-4, Isa 60:5, and Mic 4:1-2, appear to have validity, particularly with the
knowledge of Paul’s eschatology. However, I find it problematic to utilize these passages in this light without examining how these traditions come to be and where they are present in Paul’s discourse on the Jerusalem collection (Downs, The Offering, 4).
6 Ibid., 6. See Isaiah!56:6(8;!60:1(14.!
! 3
fulfillment of God’s promise to the twelve tribes.7 With this evidence from Munck, Beckheuer,
and Laing, it is plausible to conclude that the Jerusalem Collection is significant in the
eschatological relationship between the Gentiles and Israel.8 However, it is difficult to correlate
the OT prophecies with Paul’s collection for the Jerusalem believers because there is limited
evidence of Paul’s desire to fulfill the OT prophecies of Isa 2:2-4, Isa 60:5, and Mic 4:1-2.
An Obligatory Collection
More widely accepted is the idea of the collection being an obligation. In Gal 2:10, Paul
and Barnabas are asked to “remember the poor,” which is traditionally understood as a
responsibility given to Paul by the Jerusalem church. Downs utilizes the perspectives of Karl
Holl and Klaus Berger to show what scholars believe makes this collection an obligation.9 Holl,
referencing Rom 15:26-27, suggests that Gentile contributors are indebted to the Jerusalem
church. Because Jerusalem was believed to be the hub of the early Christian movement, Paul and
his Gentile congregations were legally obligated to return financial support to the mother
church.10 Berger notes the cultural standards of Jerusalem and connects them to the collection.
He uses Acts 24:17 to contend that the collection was an almsgiving, or an opportunity for the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 Mark T B. Laing, "The Pauline Collection for the 'Poor' in Jerusalem: an Examination of Motivational
Factors Influencing Paul," Bangalore Theological Forum 34, no. 1 (June 1, 2002), 89. !
8 N.T. Wright and P. Walker dispute the idea that the Jerusalem collection is an eschatological event. They conclude that Jerusalem has significant meaning in Paul’s eschatology, but there is no evidence in the Pauline Corpus that suggests Paul encouraged the Gentiles to go to Zion, nor to pray for the Jerusalem churches (Laing, “Pauline Collection”, 89). Although unnecessary to support my thesis, I believe Wright and Walker are correct in their views. It is difficult to understand the collection as a fulfillment of OT prophecy as Munck, Beckheuer, and Laing do.
9 Ibid., 9-14. 10 “Holl suggested that the Jerusalem community possessed ‘a certain right of taxation over the entire
church’” (Ibid., 11).
! 4
Gentiles to be redeemed through charity and included in the covenant community.11 This claim is
difficult to accept because of the lack of evidence supporting it.12
An Ecumenical Offering
The frequent use of the word κοινωνία13 in the Pauline Corpus leads many scholars to
interpret the collection as an ecumenical offering. Downs suggests that the collection serves as
an example of a voluntary expression of unity.14 Here, the collection’s purpose is to join the
Jewish and Gentile believers together through the same understanding of the gospel of Jesus
Christ. Oscar Cullmann supports this thesis and declares the collection a monumental act of
Pauline theology.15 Another scholar, Josef Hainz, argues that the collection was not a result of
the request in Gal 2:10.16 It was entirely formed from Paul’s benevolence. Although it was a
measure of promoting and maintaining peace17, I will suggest that he was motivated by multiple
factors.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 Ibid., 11. 12 There is no evidence to show that the Gentile believers were ever considered full members of God’s
covenant. Also, it is difficult to dispute Paul’s known opposition to Jewish identity markers; therefore, “it is difficult to imagine that the apostle to the Gentiles would have recognized another ethnic identity marker – such as payment of the temple tax or alms for the poor – as a legitimate means of Gentile acceptance.” See Downs, The Offering, 11.
13 See 2 Cor 8:4, 23; 9:3, 13; Rom 15:26.
!14 Ibid., 15. 15 Cullmann states, “It is much more than a humanitarian collection. It is an ecumenical affair and assumes
for Paul definite theological character” (Ibid., 15). 16 Ibid., 16. Hainz claims the church in Antioch intended for the collection to be solely for ecumenical
purposes; therefore, the request to remember the poor was merely a reminder of the importance of the collection, not an obligation. As we will examine in the following sections, I believe the collection is an obligation that serves an ecumenical purpose.
17 Laing, “The Pauline Collection”, 88.
! 5
A Material Relief
Some scholars suggest that the collection is Paul’s method of material relief. Unlike Karl
Holl, who argues that πτωχός in Gal 2:10 and Rom 15:26 is used as a term of honorific poverty,
Downs contends that πτωχός is literally referencing the “economically disadvantaged”.18
Therefore, the relief can also be considered a form of charity for the destitute. David Horrell
concludes that the collection is driven entirely by Paul’s desire to give material relief to the poor
in Jerusalem,19 although I propose that Paul was motivated by more than one issue.
Benefaction in the Greco-Roman World
The Greco-Roman world was largely defined by benefaction, a hierarchical system
consisting of two entities: a benefactor (patron) and a client. Richard Saller defines benefaction
as a “reciprocal relationship between patrons and clients”.20 In the ancient world, relationships
functioned on the basis of benefaction. Culturally, it had no boundaries. It was present in both
the secular and religious realms.21 In the following sections, I will give an example of a specific
form of benefaction that is relevant to Paul’s Jerusalem collection and argue that Paul engages a
form of benefaction that assists in making his collection successful.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!18 Downs, The Offering, 19-20. 19 Horrell understands the collection as what he terms, “materialist theology – a theology which engages
with social, economic, and political realities, a theology which insists that the gospel has to do with the whole of life, including the material conditions and socio-economic relationships in which people are enmeshed.”!(Ibid., 21).
20 Saller further defines benefaction and the role of patrons and clients: “By patron I mean a person who
uses his influence to assist and protect some other person, who becomes his ‘client’, and in return provides certain services to his patron. The relationship is asymmetrical, though the nature of services exchanged may differ considerably.” (Steven J. Friesen, "Paul and Economics: the Jerusalem Collection as an Alternative to Patronage," in Paul Unbound, ed. Christopher Tuckett (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2010), 44-45.
21 S. Mott states, “The formal obligation of rendering appropriate honor and gratitude to one’s benefactor at
once motivated and controlled personal, political, and diplomatic conduct” (Laing, “The Pauline Collection”, 85).
! 6
Civic Benefaction
Euergetism, formed from the Greek word ευεργέτης meaning benefactor, was a form of
benefaction in which many participated during the Hellenistic period. Gregg Gardner defines
euergetism as a “form of civic benefaction in which a voluntary gift to a city was recognized and
repaid with rewards that carried high symbolic value.”22 Gardner gives a more detailed
explanation of euergetism, stating:
A benefactor would personally provide the city with one or more contributions that might include food, construction projects, public games, fortifications or other forms of defense, victory in military campaigns or athletic competitions, various municipal services, and/or provisions for the local cult. In return, the ευεργέτης would be recognized for his or her contribution/s with a prize drawn from a fairly standardized set of rewards.23
Thus, the benefactor would be regarded positively and given abundant authority. Those who
benefited from the patron erected statues and idols of the benefactors.24 Although benefactors
were highly esteemed, their practices presented many issues in the Jewish world. As people of
the Law, Jews viewed the rewards and statues given to benefactors to be in opposition to the
prohibition in Ex 20:4.25 Since they were unable to rectify the differences between the cultural
norms and their religious backgrounds, it is likely that most Jews would not have accepted
euergetism.
Bruce W. Longenecker interprets euergetism26 with the request made in Gal 2:10 in
mind. He argues that euergetism should not be directly connected with concern for the well-
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!22 Gregg Gardner, "Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century BCE,"
Journal Of Biblical Literature 126, no. 2 (June 1, 2007), 328.
23 Ibid., 328. 24 Ibid., 328. 25 Ibid., 328. 26 Longenecker defines euergetism as the “doing of ‘good deeds’ within the civic arena. It “involved
donating significant amounts of one’s own money in order to resource civic provision: roads, banquets, gladiatorial games, monuments, baths, theaters, pavements, temples, warships, and the like.” See Bruce W. Longenecker,
! 7
being of others. For Longenecker, the motivation for practicing euergetism was the obtainment
of a heightened social status.27 While benefaction was intended as a symbiotic relationship
between benefactor and client, Longenecker argues that this was not the case. Although
benefactors provided the proper resources, most clients were unable to afford what was expected
in return, and thus were unable to give back to their benefactors successfully.28 The dichotomy
between Judaism and Hellenism and the interpretation presented by Longenecker forces one to
question Paul’s intentions with the Jerusalem collection. Would Paul engage in Hellenistic
practices to fulfill the request of the church in Antioch? Did Paul subconsciously seek status
elevation through the collection? Did Paul receive benefits (monetary and/or material) for
supporting Jerusalem? These questions are not easily answered, and many scholars are divided in
their responses.
Paul the Benefactor
Paul spent much of his ministry collecting an offering from the Gentile churches to give
to the church in Jerusalem. In Gal 2:10, Paul was placed under voluntary obligation to collect
financial support for the poor in Jerusalem. Jürgen Becker states, “Nevertheless, as an individual
who had given his word, Paul felt committed for life to this agreement.”29 It is important to note
that Paul never forced, but instead highly encouraged the Gentile churches to support the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 71.
27 Ibid., 71-72.
28 Ibid., 73. Longenecker does not give enough evidence to support his understanding of benefaction; therefore, I find it difficult to agree with his position.
29 Jürgen Becker and O C, Jr Dean, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox
Pr, 1993), 258. !
! 8
Jerusalem church.30 In 2 Cor 8:8, Paul declares that he is not demanding that the Corinthians
give; instead, he is “testing the genuineness” of their love. Again, in 2 Cor 8:13-14, Paul reminds
the church in Corinth that he is not asking them to become financially burdened by their giving.
He suggests that they give their abundance for the needs of the church in Jerusalem, and in doing
so, decrease the gap between the wealthy and the poor.31
This topic is a subject of division in scholarship. Some scholars find it unacceptable to
think Paul would use Hellenistic practices to assist the church in Jerusalem, while others suggest
Paul did partake in civic benefaction. David Downs deems the collection an act of worship,
rather than a form of benefaction. He believes the rhetoric is rooted in religious language.32 On
the other hand, Richard S. Ascough and Stephan Joubert argue that Paul actually participated in
benefaction. Ascough defends his proposal by investigating Pauline rhetoric in 2 Cor 8:1-5,
suggesting Paul uses political language.33 Likewise, Joubert examines the social relationships
present in the Jerusalem collection. He calls the collection a “benefit of exchange”. Joubert
states, “Paul understood the collection as a benefaction by which Paul and his assemblies could
assist the Jerusalem believers.”34 He shows that benefaction can also be applied to religious
functions. Supporting this evidence, Joubert also displays the complexity of benefaction in the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30 Becker states, “Yet he [Paul] always made a point of stressing the free decision of the churches that he asked for collection (e.g., 2 Cor 8:3-4; 9:2, 7) ,(Ibid., Paul, 258). !
31 “I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance” (2 Cor 8:13-14).
32 Friesen, "Paul,” 49. Downs’ conclusion seems to overlook the potential for secular rhetoric. See “The
Completion of Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor 8:1-15” Richard S. Ascough, New Testament Studies 42, no. 4 (October 1, 1996), 584-599; here 596-599. Ascough proposes there is other rhetoric in use.
33 Ascough states, “Paul appeals to the Corinthians by invoking the rivalry for honor, often found among
members of religious associations, in this case between the Macedonians and the Corinthians” (Ibid., “The Completion,” 598). !
34 Friesen, “Paul,” 47. !
! 9
Greco-Roman world and in the religious world, by concluding that the Jerusalem church was
also recognized as Paul’s benefactor. He determines that Paul was a benefactor and a beneficiary,
just as Jerusalem was a benefactor and a beneficiary.35 However, this thesis can be disputed by
examining the concept of salary in the Greco-Roman world.
The Issue of Salary
Most benefactors in the Greco-Roman world presumably received some form of benefit
for their patronage. For many scholars, such as Downs and Longenecker, this is problematic
when attributing the word benefactor to an Apostle. They deem it impossible for Paul to concern
himself foremost with the churches’ well-being while benefiting financially. Lars Aejmelaeus
suggests a different perspective.36 In 1 Cor 9, 2 Cor 11:7-12, and 2 Cor 12:13-18, Paul addresses
the issue of salary. Aejmelaeus argues the importance of examining the cultural norms of both
Jewish and Hellenistic customs pertaining to salary. It is also necessary to investigate how
religious and philosophical teachers in the Greco-Roman world made their living among those
with whom they interacted.37 We know through biblical accounts that Paul was an itinerant
preacher and a religious teacher among the non-Jews. Thus, we must determine how he received
funding for his missionary endeavors and how it connects with the Hellenistic norms. Did Paul
receive payment for being a benefactor to the Gentile churches with which he worked or did he
earn enough on the side that sufficed his needs? Is it possible that Paul would have kept a portion
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!35 Ibid., 47.
!36 Lars Aejmelaeus, “Salary: Paul and the ‘Super Apostles,’” in Fair play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early
Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen, ed. Ismo Dunderberg, C.M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2002), 349. For further reading on understanding salary in the Greco-Roman world as it pertains to Paul’s ministry, I recommend this essay. !
37 Ibid., 349.
! 10
of the collection to assist him with expenses?38
Because of historical evidence, we can be certain that Paul earned some form of a living.
Many scholars maintain that Paul was bi-vocational: an itinerant preacher and an artisan.
Aejmelaeus suggests Paul funded most of his expenses through his artisan abilities.39 His work
as an artisan proved to be contrary to what the wealthy Hellenists deemed proper. Ronald F.
Hock explains that the wealthy view an artisan as one inferior even to a businessman.40 For this
reason, he argues that Paul’s defense in 1 Cor 9:1-27 is due to his opposition to the standard
Hellenistic opinion. Victor P. Furnish further supports this proposition by stating, “Among the
philosophers and itinerant teachers of Paul’s day, continuing to work at a craft was regarded as
the least acceptable way of providing for life’s necessities. This accords with the generally low
estimate of craftsmen in the ancient world.”41 Additionally, had Paul accepted financial support
from the Corinthians, he would have been required to submit a form of repayment because of the
structure of benefaction. Furnish goes on to say:
The wealthy expressed and enhanced their power by becoming patrons of the needy. To be the recipient of a benefaction was to be placed immediately under an obligation of gratitude to the benefactor, and the gratitude of the beneficiary in turn placed the benefactor under further obligation. Therefore, to accept a gift was to become a client of and dependent upon the more privileged person. To refuse a benefaction was an act of social enmity.42
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38 This question is of particular interest to me. I believe that the answer could be either way. Our modern idea of selling items on consignment leads me to question whether or not there may have been similar methods in the Greco-Roman world. Perhaps Paul may have taken up money for the Jerusalem collection and at the same time informed Gentile givers that a portion of money would go towards enabling him to continue on his missionary endeavors.
39 Ibid., 350. 40 Ibid., 350. “The upper class despised craftsmen… ‘To those of wealth and power, the appearance of the
artisan was that befitting a slave.’” !
41 Ibid., 350. 42 Ibid., 352.
! 11
It is clear that Paul was working under rigid social structures, which he successfully overcame.
In all likelihood, Paul’s audience consisted of members of the proletariat (1 Cor 1:26-28).
It is unlikely that he would have offended them by refusing their financial support. By doing so,
he avoided the cyclical structure of benefaction, while remaining a benefactor to the church in
Antioch. But, if Paul received financial support from the church in Antioch as Stephan Joubert
suggests, why would he need to be bi-vocational? This answer is inconclusive with the evidence
we currently have. One can be certain that Paul was aware of the financial necessities of his
journey. Thus, I suggest that Paul, as a benefactor to the church in Jerusalem and under the
Greco-Roman benefaction structure, was obligated to give relief to his supporting church
because of its support of his missionary journey. At the same time, he remained conscious of
their financial situation and became bi-vocational to offset their expenses.
The Collection as κοινωνία
Although Paul’s Jerusalem collection was heavily influenced by benefaction in the
Greco-Roman world, I suggest that Paul was motivated to do more than just meet the churches’
financial needs. He was determined to see a genuine κοινωνία established between the Jewish
and Gentile believers.
Julien M. Ogereau holds that there are various meanings to the term κοινωνία that may
accurately define the type of collection Paul conducted. When describing the Jerusalem
collection, κοινωνία first appears in 2 Cor 8:4 and 9:13, and its last appearance is in Rom 15:26.
Ogereau notes that in 2 Cor 9:13 and Rom 15:26, κοινωνία is frequently translated as a monetary
contribution.43 However, another meaning can be denoted in Demosthenes’ third Philippic
Oration: κοινωνἰαν βοηθεἰας καἰ φιλίας ποιήσασθαι (Demosthenes Or. 9:28). Ogereau !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
43 Julien M. Ogereau, "The Jerusalem Collection as Koinōnia: Paul's Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity," New Testament Studies 58, no. 3 (July 1, 2012), 366. !
! 12
determines this to be a reference to “the establishment (ποιήσασθαι) of a common agreement or
partnership (κοινωνία) among the Greeks to help each other (βοηθεία) and unite politically and
militarily (φιλία) against the threat of Philip of Macedon.44 The substantive form of κοινωνία
(κοινωνός) is often the object of the verb ποιέω and “generally refers to political allies, business
associates, or the recipients of some benefaction.”45 This definition supports my thesis that Paul
as a benefactor understood that the collection was also purposed for building relationships.
Finally, Ogereau references Aristotle’s definition of κοινωνία in Politics, where it is understood
as the “basic socio-political unit” that is the basis of society that drives the culture to mutual
assistance.46
Building on the idea of mutual assistance, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that κοινωνία
should be interpreted as more than a matter of “casual acquaintances”.47 Johnson maintains that
κοινωνία insists on a “mutual commitment of mind and resources” that is based on three aspects:
equality, unity, and genuine obligation.48 Each of these has a significant role in Paul’s Jerusalem
collection. Paul was fully aware of the issues he would face and the methods he would use to
counteract them. He tirelessly sought to establish a genuine κοινωνία between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!44 Ibid., 369. 45 Ibid., 370. 46 “The κοινονία of the polis intrinsically implies, indeed demands from its citizens, sociability,
communality, interdependency, and solidarity, thereby placing the Athenians, in theory at least, under the common obligation to assist one another.” See ibid., 372.
47 Luke Timothy Johnson, "Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the New
Testament," Interpretation 58, no. 2 (April 1, 2004), 160. !
48 Ibid., 160. “Three aspects in particular were stressed. The first is that friendship involves unity and equality, which is often expressed in terms of reciprocity. The second is that friendship is inclusive. It is not simply a matter of sharing the same vision. It extends to the full sharing of all things, spiritual and material. Here is where body language is significant: true friendship means active participation, sharing, and help between partners. The third is that friendship involves genuine obligation.”
! 13
The Aim of the Jerusalem Collection
The primary purpose of the Jerusalem collection was to establish a genuine κοινωνία
among the Jewish and Gentile Christians. As we have seen, Paul was devoted to the request
made by the church in Antioch in Gal 2:10. Stefan Schapdick maintains that each Christian
community is its own ἐκκλησία; yet, each ἐκκλησία must establish a common ground. As he
suggests, each ἐκκλησία needs a point of origin, and that origin is the “mother church in
Jerusalem.”49 This ecumenical theme is addressed frequently in Paul’s first letter to the
Corinthian church (1 Cor 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 10:32; 11:16). Paul reiterates to the Corinthians that the
collection is not focused solely on monetary support. He insists that its primary focus is on the
ecclesial unity between all believers.50
Paul is also interested in creating fairness and equality between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians. The use of ἰσότης in 2 Cor 8:13-14 denotes this idea. According to Ogereau, Paul saw
ἰσότης “on the part of the Christian as a regulative principle of mutual assistance as in the ideal
picture of Acts 2:44f; 4:36f.” His thesis correlates with David J. Downs’ interpretation of 2 Cor
8:13-15.51 Paul desires to see a level of reciprocity among the members of his home church in
Jerusalem and those whom he is evangelizing. Although ἰσότης and κοινωνία are different terms,
they are to be viewed as synonyms in the context of Paul’s Jerusalem collection. Ogereau
concludes his discussion by declaring that the collection was directed at refining societal
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!49 Stefan Schapdick, “The Collection For The Saints In Jerusalem On µίαν σαββάτου (1 Cor 16.2)” in
Feasts and Festivals, 147-160, ed. Christopher Tuckett (Leuven; Walpole, Mass: Peeters, 2009), 151. !50 Ibid., “The Collection”, 152.
!51 Ogereau, “The Jerusalem”, 366. See also Downs, The Offering, 137, “V. 13: Paul does not desire that the
recipients of the offering should have “relief” while the Corinthian contributors suffer “affliction”. Instead, Paul envisions a reciprocal relationship in which the present abundance of the Corinthians will help to alleviate the material needs of the saints in Jerusalem (and in which the situation may in the future be reversed), “so that there may be equality” (v. 14).
! 14
inequalities in the Greco-Roman world.52 Paul genuinely cares to see the culture be transformed
and he is willing to accept the difficulties that exist in order to achieve a true Christian κοινωνία.
Paul’s Methods
To fulfill the request made in Gal 2:10 successfully, Paul utilized other methods to gather
funding for the collection. An examination of Paul’s rhetoric reveals the tactfulness of his
ministry. A careful exploration of the names he incorporates into his writings also shows how
Paul built a highly functional social network to assist in his endeavors of establishing a genuine
κοινωνία.
In 2 Cor 8:4, the Greek text states, “µετά πολλῆς παρακλήσεως δεόµενοι ἡµῶν τὴν χάριν
καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους.”53 Ralph P. Martin suggests that the reader
not view χάρις, κοινωνία, and διακονία as synonyms of the collection. Martin continues by
stating, “We have taken χάρις here as a human privilege, a gracious act, while recognizing that it
has a theological underpinning, i.e., the Macedonians have acted in response to divine grace
which prompts and disposes all human endeavor. The thought goes back to (Cor) 8:1.”54 He then
examines Paul’s use of κοινωνία in this verse. Κοινωνία in this context is more than the gaining
of fellowship. Paul’s use implies the act of participating in an “objective reality, the religious
good, which gives the basis and the norm by which the sharing is made possible and effective.”55
Paul uses the Macedonians’ desire to support actively their fellowship as an example to
encourage other believers to contribute to the collection. His method was effective in motivating
the Corinthians to support their fellow believers in Jerusalem. It is evident that Paul was a master !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
52 Ogereau, “The Jerusalem”, 377. 53 “Begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints…” 2 Cor 8:4 (NRSV).
54 Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, (Waco, Tex: Word Bks, 1986), 254.
!55 Ibid., 2 Corinthians, 254.
! 15
at rhetoric due to his involvement in both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds. Unlike today’s
society, his audience would have understood the rhetoric in its intended form.
Paul is also not afraid to use rhetoric as a means of delicate manipulation. 2 Cor 8:8-9
shows this: “Οὐ κατ᾽ἐπιταγὴν λέγω ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἑτέρων σποθδῆς καὶ τὸ τῆς ὑµετέρας ἀγάπης
γνήσιον δοκιµάζων, γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ κθρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι᾽ὑµᾶς
ἑπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν, ἵνα ὑµεῖς τῆ ἐκείνου πτωχεἰα πλουτήσητε.”56 Again, Paul encourages
the Corinthians to be generous by referencing the generosity of the Macedonians. David J.
Downs suggests that Paul is “not above using the positive example of one congregation to stir up
support from the collection in another.”57 His writing is clearly persuasive and has definite
motives leading the Corinthians towards generosity. In 2 Cor 8:9, Paul uses a distinct Greek
phrase that his audience would have understood, one that our modern translations often overlook.
The phrase γινώσκετε γὰρ is translated as “for you know”. A modern reader will assume this is
another Pauline transitional phrase. However, the meaning of the phrase is richer than what most
modern lay readers would understand. Martin argues that γινώσκετε γὰρ follows the typical
divine action paradigm, calling the early Christians to action.58 Therefore, this phrase enforces an
ethical call, and for the Corinthians, Paul is encouraging them to give generously because it is
what the Macedonians and the Lord have done.
Also, it is obvious that establishing a genuine κοινωνία among Jewish and Gentile
Christians could not be accomplished alone. Throughout his missionary journey, Paul developed
a social network to assist him. Bruce J. Malina deems Paul a “change agent” and all “change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
56 “I do not say this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love against the earnestness of others. For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” 2 Cor 8:8-9 (NRSV).
57 Downs, The Offering, 19. !
58 Ibid., 263.
! 16
agents” use “opinion leaders”. According to Malina, an “opinion leader” is “an individual who is
able to influence the attitudes and/or behavior of others informally and in a desired way with
relative frequency.”59 Paul’s associates were Timothy, Silvanus, and Titus. They were Paul’s
method of staying in contact with his churches. As “opinion leaders”, they knew the various
cultures and standards with which they were working and were able to influence decisions.
Therefore, the “opinion leaders” benefitted Paul and his missionary endeavors.60 By building this
social network, Paul was able to communicate and create his desired κοινωνία by stretching his
boundaries further than he could physically and culturally go.
Challenges to the Establishment of κοινωνία
For Paul, the establishment of κοινωνία was met with challenges. Richard S. Ascough
addresses the issues of locality in the Greco-Roman world.61 Christian groups were primarily
concerned with their own local congregations. This is evident in 2 Cor 8:1-15; 9:1-5, where the
Christians in Corinth were seemingly unconvinced of their need to support an unknown group.
Julien Ogereau asks, “What has Corinth to do with Jerusalem? What political treaty, economic
agreement, socio-cultural connection, or even ethnic relationship existed between the two cities
that could justify Paul’s request?”62 The Corinthians probably asked the same question. Ascough
elaborates on the confusion he believes the Corinthians had. He says, “What confuses the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!59 Bruce J. Malina, Timothy: Paul's Closest Associate (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2008), 62-63. 60 Ibid., 63-64. “The selection of coworkers according to their interpersonal competence and personal
acquaintance with the Hellenistic client system served to minimize the social distance between the change-agent system of the Jerusalemite Jesus group (James, Peter, and John, for example) and the client system of Israelites living in the Hellenistic Mediterranean. Once Paul’s proclamation was accepted, a homophilous coworker like Timothy often halved the social distance between a change agent like Paul and his designated client population, which consisted of Israelites resident among a non-Israelite majority.”
61 See Richard S. Ascough, "Translocal Relationships Among Voluntary Associations and Early
Christianity" Journal Of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 2 (June 1, 1997), 223-241. !
62 Downs, “The Jerusalem”, 360.
! 17
Corinthians is not necessarily the fact that they have to donate, but that the monies are going to
Jerusalem rather than the common fund of the local congregation.”63 Under the standards of
benefaction, the Christians in Corinth were unable to comprehend why they were giving to the
Jerusalem church when it should have been the other way around.
Likewise, the Jewish Christians faced similar issues as the Gentile believers. With deep-
rooted traditions, Jewish Christians were slow to compromise their ancestral customs to
collaborate with the rest of the Greco-Roman world.64 Achtemeier notes that Paul struggled more
with the Jews that became Christians than with the Gentile converts.65 Being a Jew himself, he
understood the legalism and tradition with which he was in contention. His primary concern was
the division in the universal church that the disunity between Jewish and Gentile believers
created, and his mission was to overcome the dissension and reconcile the relationship between
the Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Conclusion
As I have explored, Paul’s motivation for the Jerusalem collection is more complex than
a request for financial relief of the poor in Jerusalem. David J. Downs describes several possible
motivations for the collection: eschatology, obligation, ecumenism, and material relief. Yet, the
complexity of the collection surpasses the surface level approach with which most readers
examine the text. While some scholars focus on one specific category as the motivation, I have
concentrated on its ecumenical and social contexts. Paul was motivated by the obligatory request
made in Gal 2:10 to redefine Christian κοινωνία, and because of his familiarity with the Greco-
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!63 Ascough, “Translocal”, 237. 64 Paul J. Achtemeier, The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul and Acts,
(Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1987), 4. !
65 Ibid., The Quest, 4. “The issue at base was Jewish identity that expressed itself in Torah faithfulness.”
! 18
Roman world, he was able to utilize civic benefaction and persuasive rhetoric to build this
genuine fellowship among Jewish and Gentile Christians. The collection was Paul’s vehicle of
reconciliation of two cultures that would benefit from mutual concern for one another.
! 19
Bibliography !
Achtemeier, Paul J. The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul and Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1987.
Aejmelaeus, Lars. “Salary: Paul and the ‘Super Apostles.’” Pages 343-376 in Fair play:
Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Heikki Räisänen. Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, C.M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2002.
Ascough, Richard S. "The Completion of a Religious Duty: The Background of 2 Cor 8.1-15."
New Testament Studies 42, no. 4 (October 1, 1996): 584-599. --------. "Translocal Relationships Among Voluntary Associations and Early Christianity."
Journal Of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 2 (June 1, 1997): 223-241. Becker, Jürgen, and O C, Jr Dean. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Louisville, Ky:
Westminster/John Knox Pr, 1993. Downs, David J. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in Its
Chronological, Culture, and Cultic Contexts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Friesen, Steven J. "Paul and Economics: The Jerusalem Collection as an Alternative to
Patronage." Pages 27-54 in Paul Unbound. Edited by Mark D. Given. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2010.
Gardner, Gregg. "Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century
BCE." Journal Of Biblical Literature 126, no. 2 (June 1, 2007): 327-343. Johnson, Luke Timothy. "Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the
New Testament." Interpretation 58, no. 2 (April 1, 2004): 158-171. Laing, Mark T B. "The Pauline Collection for the 'Poor' in Jerusalem: An Examination of
Motivational Factors Influencing Paul." Bangalore Theological Forum 34, no. 1 (June 1, 2002): 83-92.
Longenecker, Bruce W. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World.
Grand Rapids [etc.: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. Malina, Bruce J. Timothy: Paul's Closest Associate. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2008. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Waco, Tex: Word Bks, 1986. Ogereau, Julien M. "The Jerusalem Collection as Koinōnia: Paul's Global Politics of Socio-
Economic Equality and Solidarity." New Testament Studies 58, no. 3 (July 1, 2012): 360-378.