PAUL_AND_THE_JERUSALEM_COLLECTION.pdf

! !

! !

!

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

!

36

Ibid., 47.

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 deeprooted 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 SocioEconomic Equality and Solidarity." New Testament Studies 58, no. 3 (July 1, 2012): 360378.

! 20 Shapdick, Stefan. “The Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem on µίαν σαββάτου (1 Cor 16.2).” Pages 147-160 in Feasts and Festivals. Edited by Christopher Tuckett. Leuven; Walpole, Mass: Peeters, 2009. !

!