Collection for the Poor Saints in Jerusalem - Assignment Example

Paul and the Collection for the Poor Saints in Jerusalem The reference to the ‘collection’, which Paul also termed as ‘contribution’ and ‘gift’ for the poor saints in Jerusalem in each of his major epistles – Romans 15: 27-28, 1 Corinthians 16: 1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9, Galatians 2: 8-10 show that the collection had evidently been a major part of his ministry among the gentiles – “one of Paul’s most ambitious hands-on projects,” (Wright 2005, p. 167) – “a defining emblem of his apostolate” (Sze-Kar Wan 2000, p. 194). Furthermore, a review of Pauline epistles would show that for the last five to six years of his ministry, Paul seriously initiated, pleaded and gathered collections from the various Gentile Christian churches he founded for the holy ones in Jerusalem (Tobin 2000). The collection was so portentous to him that he decided to personally deliver it to Jerusalem even at the expense of his life and the possible rejection of this by the Jewish Christian church (Downs 2008, p. 1). I urge you, [brothers,] by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and that my ministry for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the holy ones… (Rom 15: 30-31) Why did the collection become very important to Paul in his apostolic mission among the Gentiles, that he was willing to die for its completion? Did the collection mean only for economic relief or was there any deeper motive to it? This is the central question that until today earns diverse opinions from biblical scholars making it all the more attractive to self-proclaimed atheists, as this has really led to controversial conclusions: “... the Jerusalem Church rejected Pauls collection and very probably had a hand in Pauls arrest “(Tobin 2000, par. 2); “Paul in practice implicitly affirms the autonomous religious identity of the Roman Christians vis-à-vis the Roman Jews” (Tellbe 2001, p. 188). The Poor Saints in Jerusalem and the Collection The ‘poor saints’ or ‘holy ones’ in Jerusalem was referring to the poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem headed by James, Peter (Cephas) and John – “... reputed to be pillars” (Galatians 2: 10) in contrast to the Gentile churches founded by Paul. A simple and laborious life was what had been encouraged among the poor saints in Jerusalem, so it is quite disconcerting to know that against the backdrop of Roman avariciousness (Foakes-Jackson 1950, p. 22), poorness would become an issue that would require Paul’s major part of his ministry to be devoted to it. A look on the actual economic conditions of the Christian Jewish church will help clarify the context of Paul’s collection project. From the account of Acts, it is clear that after the Pentecost – the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles ten days after the ascension of Lord Jesus Christ from heaven (Knight 1998, p. 41) – the Christians for a time practised living together in close fellowship by sharing voluntarily what each one had, but as membership increased, of which many are impoverished, the community’s subsistence became insufficient (Panikulam 1979, p. 31) – “At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution” (Acts 6: 1) . This increasing financial problem of the Christian churches in Jerusalem brought about by “the presence of more and more widows needing care (Acts 6: 1-7); pilgrims to Jerusalem who burdened the community; problems from the early community’s experimentation with communal life (Acts 4: 32-5:11), the economic hardships caused by famine (Acts 11: 27-30)” (McKnight, cited in Harrison 2007, p. 25). The entire decade of 40 A.D. – the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D) was characterised by chronic famine and shortage in Palestine (Reicke 2001, cited in Harrison 2007, p. 9). Jerusalem was particularly susceptible to such famine. Its soil is generally poor-quality clay. It possessed really only one natural water source (the spring of Shiloach). While the city had access to several ports, the roads were poor. The temple generated a tremendous volume of trade. Foreign trade consisted mainly of food, clothing, precious metals, and luxury goods. Chief imports were wheat, oil, and livestock.10 Jerusalem enjoyed a generally higher standard of living but the cost of living was also higher than the rest of the country. In times of famine and drought prices skyrocketed. There were only two grains (barley and wheat) grown in the region and the wheat crop was particularly prone to fluctuation. (Cornu 2003, cited in Harrison 2007, p. 9) This was further worsened by succeeding Roman persecutions and hostility against the Jews (Acts 4:1; 5: 17; 6: 12; 7: 54; 9: 1; 12: 1) (Panikulam 1979, p. 31). This impoverished economic condition of the Jewish Christians have reached the Gentile Christians in Antioch as predicted by a man named Aggabus was understood by the Antiochians as material poverty that immediately they sent relief to Jerusalem through Paul and Barnabas. At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and one of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine all over the world and it happened under Claudius. So the disciples determined that according to ability, each should send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea. This they did, sending it to the presbyters in care of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11: 27-30) From Acts 11: 29, Harrison (2007, p. 10) suggested the significant elements of the collection project as follows: 1. The collection is a communal act (not simply the act of interested individuals): ‘So the disciples determined’. 2. The collection is taken up among individuals without coercion or legalistic prescriptions: ‘everyone according to his ability’. 3. The collection is called a ‘diakonian’ or service. 4. The collection is for the ‘brothers in Judea’. 5. The collection is a corporate churchly act with respect to both its delivery and reception: ‘And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul’. But underlying this collection, Panikulam (1979, p. 35) explained was the concrete expression of the Holy Spirit working in their midst, calling Paul and Barnabas to faith in Christ, expressed by the two in their concern for the welfare of their brothers in faith, concretely proven by their in time provision of the urgently needed relief for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Furthermore, this contribution had sealed the validity of Paul’s claim to be the apostle of the gentiles. This recognition was symbolised by the Jewish church’s acceptance of the gift from Antioch and the authority given to Paul over the uncircumcised (gentiles) to extend the Antioch relief accompanied by Silas and Judas to appease the growing suspicion of the Jewish Christian communities that Paul is competing with the Jewish traditional ‘temple tax’. However, although the socio-historical context of the collection project provides the urgent need of the Jewish Christian churches for financial assistance from the Gentile churches, a review of 2 Corinthians 8-9 will show that Paul’s acceptance and carrying on the task of extending the collection project among the Gentile churches was not simply to help provide relief to the poor conditions of the brethrens in Jerusalem in fulfilment of his promise to the pillar apostles that gentile churches shall remember the poor. But more than this Melick (1989, p. 97) suggested that the collection to Paul was a concrete expression of Christian brotherhood between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and that integral to Paul’s collection campaign for the poor in Jerusalem was his genuine concern for the well-being of Christian brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. I say this not by way of command, but to test the genuineness of your love by your concern for others. For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake he became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich... For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have; not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality. As it is written: ‘Whoever had much did not have more, and whoever had little did not have less’. (2 Cor. 8: 8-10, 13-15) Consider this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each must do as already determined, without sadness or compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor. 9: 6-7) You are being enriched in every way for all generosity, which through us produces thanksgiving to God for the administration of this public service is not only supplying the needs of the holy ones but is also overflowing in many acts of thanksgiving to God. Through the evidence of this service, you are glorifying God for your obedient confession of the Gospel of Christ and the generosity of your contribution to them and to all others, while in prayer on your behalf they long for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. (2 Cor. 11-15) Also, “Paul... exercise[d] his apostolic authority to persuade the Corinthians to give generously to the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem” (Finlan 2008, p. 70) banking on patronal expectation (2 Cor. 8: 9; 2 Cor. 9: 9, 13, 15), as Roman patronage was highly dominant in the Corinthian congregation (Sze-Kar Wan 2000, p. 214). In the ancient and Greco-Roman world, any assistance, favour or help was deemed reciprocated whether in kind or loyalty, fidelity, obedience (Mott 1975, p. 60). The use of Paul for the collection as an expression of unity is more prominent in his letters to the Romans, most remarkably in Romans 11: 17-24, wherein he compares the Jewish and Gentile Christian brotherhood to an olive tree cautioning his gentile churches not to be boastful, but instead remain humble and faithful to the Christian church in Jerusalem. This Paul did to pre-empt from further escalation any possible gentile movement that may advocate for a separation between the synagogues and the house churches. (Campbell 2006, p. 79) From this, Paul’s collection project in Antioch for relief as the gentiles’ collective concrete expression of their concern on the well-being of the brothers in Jerusalem – an act of fellowship (koinonia – Rom 13: 2-6; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13) and love (agape – Rom 12) – had surfaced the problems looming around the relations between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. This problem has deepened as the project got wide popularity – from originally involving only the wealthy communities, even the poor Macedonian churches voluntarily asked to be actively involved in the collection project (Panikulam 1979, p. 35). On the contrary, while many Jewish Christian members question and suspect Paul’s motive in the collection project, Paul got immense theological significance from it leading to the formation of a one Christian religion that the world has today. The Council of Jerusalem and the Collection The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) was a turning point in Christian apostolic history and also a milestone in theological importance because the council was able to resolve crucial issues despite differences and the gentile mission led by Paul was able to proceed as sanctioned by it. In effect, “the council helps portray the unity of the church... helps explain the churchs transformation from being essentially Jewish toward being a predominantly gentile community freed from laws characteristic of Judaism” (Morrison 1999, par. 1). Base on this, three points can be seen to have bearing on Paul’s larger collection project, which as he worked to its completion had become “a crowning achievement of his life” (Harrison 2007, p. 37). 1. The authority given by the council to Paul over the gentile churches, just like Peter over the circumcised (Jewish). This however, created an unresolved problem – the coexistence of the Jews and gentiles in one church especially the interdining – an important Christian practise (Bercovitz 2003, par. 2). This problem will be central in Paul’s missionary struggle. 2. The recognition that the Christian church is different from Judaism (par. 5), which saved the Peter’s church from falling back into the Judaism that Christ had fought in His ministry (Matthew 9: 17; Mark 2: 22; Luke 5: 37-39, Matt 9: 16; Mk 2: 21, Lk 5: 36). 3. Freeing the gentile church from Mosaic Law while prohibiting them idolatrous practices, and giving them the yoke of raising funds for the Jewish Christian church. Paul and the Collection What made Paul’s extended collection project after the Jerusalem council controversial may well be understood against its socio-cultural-historical context as Harrison (2007) presented: 1. The period was characterised by a heightening conflict between Palestinian Zealots and the Roman government, which also extends between Jews and Gentiles including even the Christians. (p. 15) 2. Paul, both a zealot and a Pharisee stoned Stephen to death (John 18: 31) and as authorised by Jonathan ruthlessly persecuted Christians as far as Damascus (Acts 9: 2), was converted to Christianity in A.D. 36 by the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 7: 58; 8: 3; 9: 4) (p. 15) 3. During the years of the controversial collection, the presence of pro-Jewish/nationalist sentiment within the Christian community was significant (Galatians, Acts). (p. 15) But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in — who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery — to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for you. (Gal. 2: 4-6) 4. The collection texts occurred in the following chronological order: Acts 11 (A. D. 46), Galatians 2 (A.D. 49), 1 Corinthians 16 (A. D. 56 Spring), 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 (A. D. 57 Summer), Romans 15 (A. D. 58), Acts 20 (A. D. 58), Acts 24 (A. D. 58-60) (pp. 2-8). Against this backdrop, added by the chronic financial hardships burdened upon the Jewish Church and the eagerness of Paul to bring his gentile churches’ in fellowship of love with the Jerusalem church, Paul’s motivation in undertaking the collection project was “aimed principally at the promotion of the ‘material well-being’ and ‘the relief of the economically poor in the Jerusalem church’” relief of the saints in Jerusalem and the equal distribution of goods” (Megitt 1998, cited in Downs 2008, p. 23). But, more than this is the ecumenical message underlying the collection. The gift to Paul concretely signifies unity between the circumcised and the uncircumcised under Christ’s one gospel. Furthermore, it may have also been regarded by Paul “as an olive branch offered... to the leadership of the Jerusalem church, with whom the apostle had... a rocky relationship... as early as the conflict at Antioch... (Gal 2: 11-14)” (p. 161). And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to darw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, “If you though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Needless to say, the collection consequentially strengthened the interrelationships of Paul’s Gentile churches in the Galatia, Macedonia, and Achia (p. 161). Paul’s treatment of the collection as a way to promote Jewish-gentile unity had unsurprisingly entangled him in an argument over two irreconcilable views: “the traditional Jewish ethnic boundaries that were based on such overt signs as circumcision and dietary restrictions and on such basis value orientation as the fulfilment of the Torah” (Sze-Kar Wan 2000, p. 204) and opposed to this is Paul’s “own expanded boundaries based on a faith-centred reading of the Abrahamic covenant” (p. 204). To this, Campbell (2006) noted that what Paul intends was not to obscure the boundaries of Israel’s ethnicity, or obliged gentiles become Jews, instead, what he intends was to reconfigure the relation between these two different body of believers. Thus, what he seeks is unity in diversity (p. 8-10). Sze-Kar Wan (2000) furthered that, as Paul creates “a universalizing canopy of meanings along Jewish lines, Paul also resisted forces of cultural chauvinism” (p. 196). In his effort to complete his collection project, Paul inevitably had to struggle against Jewish ethnic exclusiveness, making this project integral to his mission, because to Paul the collection that was seemingly simple symbolises “resistance and subversion... it was at heart an anti-imperial and anti-hegemonic protest... it was also a daring proposal to reorder economic life together along unabashedly transcendent, universalizing principles” (p. 196). Conclusion The collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem – a seemingly simple endeavour – had in fact been crucial and central to Paul’s ministry. Through this, Paul, fully believing in the gospel of Christ promoted unity between the Jews and Gentile Christians in the One Gospel of Christ by emphasising that as one body, caring for one’s brother’s well-being and material need is an expression of sharing the God’s – thus, the curative significance of the gift. In so doing, the Gentiles giving the gift and the Jews receiving the relief essentially act as one body, as the need of the one is the concern of the other. Such is not a simple unity given the sharp demarcation line between the two. So, the gift transcends these differences against the hostile opposition of the ‘rigorists’ (Bercovitz 2003) in the Jerusalem church, who wittingly or unwittingly were pushing back Christianity to Judaic fundamentalism of which Christ had opposed. It was from them that Paul could have felt a threat to his life in his last journey to Jerusalem. It was also the ecumenical significance of the collection that Paul wanted it so hard to be accepted by the Jerusalem Church that he personally delivered it despite the foreboding that he felt. Furthermore, the collection had helped Paul strengthen the connectedness of gentile churches. Thus, the collection was Paul’s crowning achievement, because in completing the collection project, he had shown the depth of his faith in Christ. Through the collection, he had shown the Jewish Christians that the gospel of Christ is a Gospel of love not hatred, of fellowship not rejection, of equality not exclusivity. Reference List Bercovitz, Peter 2003, ‘The importance of the conference’, Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies, viewed 2 May 2010 Campbell, William S. 2006, Paul and the creation of Christian identity, York Road, London; New York, New York: T&T Clark. Downs, David J. 2008, The Offering of the Gentiles, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. Finlan, Stephen 2008, The Apostle Paul and the Pauline Tradition, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota. Foakes-Jackson, F. J. 1950, The gentile world, in T. S. Kepler (ed), Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology, 17-23, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, New York. Harrison, Matthew C. 2007, Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem, LCMS World Relief and Human Care, St. Louis, Missouri. Knight, Earl 1998, The Power of the Holy Spirit, TEACH Services, Inc., Brushton, New York. Melick, Richard R. 1989, ‘The collection for the saints: 2 Corinthians 8-9’, Criswell Theological Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 97-117. Morrison, Michael 1999, Decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), viewed 2 May 2010 Mott, S. C. 1975, ‘The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence’, in G. Hawthorne (ed), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, 62-72, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Panikulam, George 1979, Analecta Biblica: Koinonia in the New Testament. A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life. Biblical Institute Press, Rome. Sze-Kar Wan 2000, ‘Collection for the saints as anticolonial act’, in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, Trinity Press International, Pennsylvania. Tellbe, M. 2001, Paul between Synagogue and State, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. Tobin, Paul N. 2000. ‘Pauls final trip to Jerusalem: The rejection of the collection’, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager, viewed 1 May 2010 Wright, N., T. 2005, Paul: Fresh Perspectives, SPCK, London. Read More