Theology In Action: Paul, The Poor, And Christian Mission

by Jason B. Hood[1]

Christ United Methodist Church, Memphis

Introduction

The apostle Paul[2] is famous for his theology and his role in the formation of early Christianity. Most believers are familiar with his preaching, evangelism, and letter writing. But many Christians have little awareness of Paul’s mission to the poor, a mission embodied in “Paul’s obsession for nearly two decades”: his “collection for the saints.”[3] Paul’s collection and other teaching on possessions and generosity occupy more space in his letters than his teaching on justification by faith. Yet scholars and contemporary church leaders alike often fail to give the collection and related Pauline teaching the attention it requires, and fail to absorb insights from Paul’s praxis (perhaps due in part to the inability of scholars to agree on the boundaries of the collection).[4] To that end, this study examines Paul’s efforts for the poor and the significance of his work for believers today.

Paul’s Collection For The Poor

The collection for the poor provides an important window to Paul’s own social concern. The hint we have of Paul’s concern for the poor comes in Galatians 2:1–10, in his discussion of his relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem.[5] Paul and Barnabas are accepted as apostles to the Gentiles. The leaders in Jerusalem call them to “remember the poor” as they carry out their mission, and Paul professes that he and Barnabas were already eager to do what this request required (2:10). No doubt Barnabas’s track record made him a prime candidate for apostolic mission, since he modelled such service (Acts 4:36 –37).

The instruction seems to be a general description of how to conduct ministry rather than the beginning of the collection proper. But Paul’s collection grew out of this admonition.[6] The “poor” as the target of the collection were probably Judean Christians in a state of material want due to some combination of natural or political disaster (food shortages could be caused by both) and loss of inheritance and family structure as social punishment for believing in Jesus as Messiah and joining with his followers. No doubt many among the believers were widows, the disabled, and other marginalized persons. The remarkable degree of Christian concern for the poor may have exhausted local resources (Acts 2:44–45, 4:34–37), leaving the community particularly vulnerable in the face of disaster and persecution.

Paul explicitly addresses the collection in his three largest letters. 1 Corinthians 16:1– 6 includes instructions for gathering the collection weekly, according to one’s ability. Romans 15:25–28, 30–31 discusses the collection as the reason for Paul’s absence from Rome and addresses the obligation to practice reciprocal giving.

Gentiles owe a “debt” of koinonia—that is, a fellowship that features economic sharing—to Jews, because they have received spiritual benefits from them. Paul also expresses some concern over whether the gift will be accepted or fully appreciated by those in Jerusalem. 2 Corinthians 8– 9 is one of the longest sustained discussions on a single topic in Paul’s letters. All three of these passages include references to other churches’ participation in the collection, Paul’s active role in collection and delivery, and “the saints” as the recipients.

Other references to ministry for the poor in Paul’s letters are probably focused on local ministry.[7] Acts, although largely outside the scope of this essay, provides evidence of Paul’s efforts. The collection at the beginning of Paul’s ministry is stimulated by a prophecy in Antioch regarding a famine, and Barnabas and Saul take the lead in delivering the subsequent gifts (Acts 11:27–30; 12:25). Many of Paul’s companions mentioned in Acts are almost certainly representatives of the nations selected to participate in the transportation and delivery of the collection (see especially Acts 20:3– 6; cf. 1 Cor 16:3–4).[8] Paul’s insistence on returning to Jerusalem to fulfil his mission to deliver the collection—and the presence of Gentile co-workers aiding him in the delivery of koinonia—would become one of the proximate causes leading to his arrest and imprisonment (Acts 21:10–33; 24:17).[9]

As Paul’s mission grew, so did his work for the poor. Even in the face of the growth of his church planting enterprise, he did not divest himself of fundraising, the task of delivering the funds, or (elsewhere in his letters) instruction in the care for the poor. As a result, the shape of his life and ministry were heavily influenced by the collection and its implications. McKnight summarizes, “It is hard to imagine any campaign more embracing of the northern Mediterranean and any project that occupied Paul’s attention more than this collection for the saints.”[10] Paul demonstrates a commitment to fundraising for those in need despite the dangers of such an enterprise (ancient Mediterranean travel was no picnic); despite legitimate needs among donors themselves (2 Cor 8:1–5); despite reluctance among some givers and even the possibility of reluctance on the part of some would-be recipients, not to mention the objections of bystanders (Rom 15:27; Acts 20:22; 2 Cor 8:8; 9:1–5); despite the planning and personnel required (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:16 –24; cf. Acts 20:3– 6); despite the way in which Paul’s dream of evangelizing all the way to Spain was postponed (Rom 15:24–27); and despite the way in which the presence of his Gentile contributors contributed to his arrest and imprisonment (Acts 21:28–29).[11]

Theology In Action: Paul’s Gospel And Paul’s Collection

Dunn notes that the collection holds a “peculiar significance” for Paul, and “sums up to a unique degree the way in which Paul’s theology, missionary work, and pastoral concern were held together as a single whole.”[12] Such statements notwithstanding, the collection rarely plays such a role in scholars’ articulations of Paul’s ministry and theology. Still less frequently are the ethical implications of the collection addressed, although 2 Corinthians 8– 9 is a favorite passage from which to derive inspirational slogans for church building campaigns and budgets. Because of the depth of Paul’s concern with factors such as Jew-Gentile unity, some scholars address the collection almost entirely in terms of Paul’s concern for the gospel project in which he was engaged, seemingly leaving no room for concern for the poor in their analysis of the purpose of the collection.[13] At the very least, however, it is clear that many theological and social factors motivated Paul, and concern for the poor was among them.[14] Paul desires to assist the poor in such a way that the unity of the church is powerfully expressed.

Paul’s language concerning the collection reflects these diverse motivations. The giving creates and sustains koinonia (Rom 15:26, 2 Cor 8:4, 9:13), or a family- like unity, fellowship or partnership with deep economic implications. Christian koinonia and the collection are grounded in the good news that God redeems sinners and creates one new family—a unified new humanity in Christ.[15] Paul anticipates that in such a fellowship, the mutual obligation of loving unity across racial, geographic and cultural lines would work itself out in tangible acts of generosity, potentially flowing osmosis-like in both directions as needed (2 Cor 8:13–15). Paul calls the collection a “proof of love” (2 Cor 8:8) and a “service” to those in need (9:4; Acts 12:25). As proof of submission to the gospel (2 Cor 9:13), the collection testifies to all willing to hear that God is Lord over the Gentiles.[16] The collection is evidence of the truth of the gospel to unbelievers and Jews skeptical of the Law- free admission of Gentiles into God’s family, the great “mystery” at the center of Paul’s gospel (Eph 3:1–10; 5:32). Above all, the collection is associated with “grace” (charis). This characterization is often lost in translation, as the numerous instances of charis in 2 Cor 8– 9 appear as “gift”—a perfectly legitimate translation, but one that can lead readers away from seeing horizontal giving as a response to (and even participation in) God’s vertical giving.[17] Inspired by the grace given them in the past (8:1, 9:14) and the grace awaiting them in the future (9:8), the recipients of grace should themselves give graciously.

In this way, the collection stands as a concrete example of Paul’s teaching on the ethical consequences of salvation. Throughout Paul’s writings, divine salvation (“indicative”) precedes the command to respond with “good works” (“imperative”; see esp. Eph 2:8–10; 4:28; 1 Tim 2:9 –10; Titus 2:8; 3:1, 8), no small part of which would have been care for those with various physical, relational and emotional needs. In a similar way there is a close relationship between Paul’s gospel and the Paul’s collection, borne out by the pithy summary in 2 Corinthian 8:9: “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that through his poverty you might become rich.” The good news of Christ’s self-sacrificial incarnation and his life and death on behalf of others is the motivation for participating in the collection and the model for Christian life lived in service to others. While biblical religion is often seen as a means to material benefit (1 Tim 6:5, and in today ’s world no less than in Paul’s!), Paul insists that the whole church will derive mutual benefit from responding with charity to God’s gracious, costly acceptance of sinners (2 Cor 8:13–15, 9:8–11, 14). Hafemann observes that “the collection illustrates the significance of Paul’s theology of grace both for the individual (having received from God, Christians give to others) and for the life of the church (having been accepted by God, Christians accept one another). Completing the collection would therefore be the theological capstone of Paul ’s apostolic service.”[18] Indeed, the collection was so important to Paul that he was willing to risk imprisonment and death in Jerusalem (Acts 21:4, 13)—yet I doubt that one Christian in one hundred would know why Paul went to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25–26).

Paul does not pit various motives against one another, but sees them functioning in harmony and contributing to the ultimate goal of God’s praise and glory (2 Cor 9:11–15), which helps to explain his reference to the collection in priestly language (Rom 15:27, 2 Cor 9:12). The priestly and sacrificial language associated with the collection and other early Christian giving reinforces the nature of the global Christian community in the Messiah as his priests and temple.[19]

For Paul, care for the poor cannot be pitted against “gospel ministry”; it was consonant with and required by gospel ministry.[20] The return to Judea to deliver the collection takes priority over Paul’s visit to Rome to launch of gospel ministry in the unreached regions of the Empire all the way to Spain (Rom 15:22–29). We do not know if Paul achieved this mission, but we do know that he delivered the collection.[21] The collection was so vital that its delivery was at that moment a more urgent matter for Paul than his desire to evangelize and plant churches on the missionary frontier among those who were “without hope and without God in the world,” as he describes them in Ephesians 2:12.[22]

Applying Paul’s Mission For The Poor In Contemporary Preaching, Teaching, And Mission

Paul’s mission for the poor enables readers to draw a number of practical implications for contemporary Christian mission. Even though there are many areas where Paul is more or less silent, his emphases, motives, and actions should be reflected in our contemporary mission practice.

The Demands Of Christian Mission: Paul And The Standard For Christian Generosity

Paul’s standard for Christian generosity has much to teach the contemporary church, particularly when viewed in conjunction with his wider teaching on stewardship.[23] In the first instance, Christians give generously as they are blessed, not by arbitrary percentages. Paul has numerous opportunities to institute a quantitative guideline or tithe, yet he never does so.[24] Nor does Paul ask people to pledge what they do not expect to have in the future.[25] Paul eschews these contemporary practices and relies instead on altogether different standards.

“ ‘Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ Jesus,’ [1 Cor 11:1] is rather the whole burden of the ethical side of Paul’s teaching.”[26] The command is summarized summarized in a number of places, including Phil 2:3–11, where Paul commands the Philippians, “Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others”; he then describes the humble, sacrificial form of service seen in Jesus’ incarnation and death. The examples of Jesus is used in 2 Corinthians 8:9 to encourage participation in the collection, and in Romans 15:7 to spur the Romans on to hospitality and community-creation that leads to mutual care and the breaking of cultural barriers.

The call to imitate Jesus flows throughout Paul’s letters.[27] This practice of being shaped by the cross is not simply a matter of responding to God’s gracious gift of salvation. Rather, being shaped by the cross requires the imitation of the pattern of life by which that salvation came: through incarnation, humiliation, and the cross. The self-sacrifice of Jesus absorbed a great cost for the benefit of others leading to resurrection, new creation and exaltation. For Paul, the standard for Christian giving and for all of Christian ethics is not an amount; it is a Person, the crucified Lord. This use of imitation (not limited in the early church to Paul; cf. 1 John 3:16 –18) suggests that the standard of Christian giving has no clear limit.[28] When Paul circumscribes the limits for Christian generosity, he does so not for the sake of one’s own security or comfort, but to prevent idleness and sin, and to avoid undue burdens on the churches (2 Thess 3:6 –13, 1 Tim 5:3–16).

Ethical instruction does not stop with the shape of Jesus’ life. Paul repeatedly holds out his own sacrificial example and hope of resurrection as a model for others, not least in the arena of personal finance, as an illustration of what the imitation of Jesus might look like.[29] Moreover, this sacrificial standard is not unique to Paul, nor is it merely a New Testament phenomenon (1 Jn 3:16 –18; Luke 14:25–33).[30] Old Testament characters such as Abraham, Job, Boaz, and Ruth provide fine examples of open-handedness before God and others.[31] The Old Testament teaches that one important aspect of wickedness and unrighteousness is disadvantaging others for one’s own benefit (e.g., Jer 22:13–16). Conversely, there is a tendency to take righteousness as mere innocence, the result of keeping oneself from disadvantaging others. But the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul require more than avoiding unrighteousness. The truly righteous person “disadvantages himself or herself for the sake of the community.” Jesus’ predecessors, no less than his followers, were required to exhibit righteousness of the sacrificial sort, just as he himself illustrated this righteousness perfectly.[32] Thus, Paul can appeal to Jesus as well as Old Testament texts in his call to righteous acts for the sake of others (Acts 20:33–35; Ps 112:9 in 2 Cor 9:9).

Paul also presents an oft-overlooked benefit produced by sacrificial Christian generosity. Because the sinful human state and the tendency to set hope on things other than Christ, open-handedness is necessary to wage war against the idolatry of greed (Col 3:5, Eph 5:5; cf. Luke 12:15–34).[33] Paul requires believers to wage spiritual warfare against love of money and the desire for wealth, and generosity is part of that practice (1 Tim 6:6 –10). Contented enjoyment of God’s provision leads to the liberation of resources to meet the needs of others (6:17–19). Paul’s insistence on modelling sacrificial generosity and sufficiency in Christ confirm his own status as one free from the grasp of greed (Acts 20:33–35).

The Director Of Christian Mission: A Generous God And His Generous People

This theme is related to Paul’s use of Jesus as exemplar, and constitutes another aspect of the standard for Christian generosity. Paul connects God’s generosity with human generosity by citing a passage on the way in which God provided manna in the Old Testament: “As a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, ‘Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.’ ”[34] There has been something of a backlash against earlier trends to interpret supernatural feeding miracles naturalistically as “fable[s] about generosity” rendering the “miracle” in Jesus’ feedings of the thousands as “generosity overcoming selfishness as everyone follows Jesus’ example.”[35] Can human generosity be compared to God’s unique goodness and supernatural power? Is there in fact biblical warrant for using God’s miracles as a model for human generosity? Or are others correct in resisting the use of this passage as an ethical norm?[36] Answers can be found if we consider similar uses of God’s generosity as a stimulus for human generosity.

2 Corinthians

Paul connects the generosity of the giver with God’s own generosity in multiple places in 2 Corinthians, stating that believers are blessed by God so that they themselves can give (2 Cor 9; 1 Tim 6). As we have already seen, God’s spiritual generosity (which of course includes future physical generosity when believers receive new bodies and the whole of the new creation) should result in our physical generosity that meets material needs (2 Cor 8:9). One chapter later, Paul cites Psalm 112:9 in 2 Corinthians 9:9: “He scatters gifts... he has given gifts to the poor; [therefore] his righteousness endures forever.” Many have taken this passage as a reference to God’s own generosity and righteousness.[37] But the Psalmist’s subject throughout Psalm 112 is “the righteous man.” The canonical location of the psalm is instructive, for the previous psalm speaks of God’s own righteousness enduring forever, in part on the basis of his goodness to nature and humans who receive covenant blessings such as food and “inheritance” (Ps 111:3– 6; 112:2–4, 9). From this bounty the righteous man gives generously. The juxtaposition of these two psalms ties human care for others to God’s care for his creatures. Paul’s overall emphasis in the conclusion of the chapter fits elegantly with Psalms 111 and 112: God’s gift, even if coming through human hands, redounds to his glory and for the benefit of the giver: “His praise endures forever” (111:10); the giver is “blessed” and “his horn is exalted in honour” (112:1, 9; cf. 2 Cor 9:11–15). How would it shape Christianity generosity to believe that our work was God’s work? At the very least, it would mean that the final act in the giving sequence is a matter of praise and thanks to God, rather than thanks and praise for givers. And this is why Paul almost never thanks humans, despite the fact; yet was constantly thanking and praising God for what his brothers and sisters in Christ did for him.

Divine And Human Hospitality In Romans

In Romans 15 Paul cites the hospitality and service of the Messiah as a theological foundation for believers’ reception of those in Messiah across racial, social, or cultural lines. God’s goodness should lead to goodness towards others, regardless of ethnic or cultural distinctions, in imitation of the goodness of God. Hospitality, harmony and love (Rom 15:1–7) require believers to “welcome one another as Christ welcomed you.”[38] God receives glory when his earthly family experiences the material, physical benefits from the cross-wrought destruction of segregating boundaries long in place (Eph 2:11ff.).

Divine Generosity And Human Generosity In The New Testament

Other New Testament data coordinate divine and human generosity and indirectly shed light on Paul’s mission. In the synoptic tradition, Jesus makes much of the way in which God’s own goodness and “natural” provision must result in our own generosity (Matt 5:38–48; Lk 6:27–36). If God’s “natural” provision leads to our own natural provision, it is surely no great step beyond this to see God’s ‘supernatural provision’ as a model for human generosity. The Eucharist is juxtaposed with foot-washing in John 13; Jesus follows these acts of divine care and provision with instruction for his disciples to learn from his own “example” (13:12–17; 13:31–35; cf. 1 John 3:16 –18). The correlation between God’s provision in the Eucharist and the sacrificial service it communicates underscores the tragedy of socio-economic segregation in the church in Corinth during the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34), a segregation that incurs Paul’s condemnation in no uncertain terms, for the Corinthians have failed to “welcome one another as Christ welcomed [them]” (Rom 15:3, 7).[39]

Eschatological Divine Generosity And Human Generosity

Christian generosity functions as evidence of the new creation work of God’s Spirit. As a miraculous provision for Israel in anticipation of the inheritance of the whole world (Rom 4:13; Heb 11:8–10, 13–16), the Promised Land required a response of gratitude-fueled generosity (Deut 26:1–15). The book of Deuteronomy “has a kind of inner unity” shown by the “sustained mirror image relationship” between YHWH’s work for Israel (chapters 1 through 11) and the demands of response in worship and obedience in chapters 12 through 26. “This relationship can be described in terms of specific terminology: a correspondence between Yahweh bringing Israel to a place and Israel bringing offerings to a place; between Yahweh acting before Israel and Israel worshipping before Yahweh; between Yahweh giving the land and other good things and Israel giving, in imitation of him, to the needy.”[40]

As Christians live in koinonia-shaped generosity and kingdom community in the present, they respond to, anticipate, witness to, and share in the miraculous presence of God’s abundant new creation wrought by the Holy Spirit. The abundant life in the Promised Land anticipated something greater (Rom 4:13; Heb 11:8–10, 13–16) that is already partially present, in advance of the great eschatological conclusion. God’s guarantee of future generosity provides a stimulus for Christian generosity in the present, just as God’s generosity in the past inspires present giving. Christian generosity in the present covenant community also represents God’s own eschatological goodness to his people, for the Christian community is in fact his own new creation (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). Hafemann’s comments on 2 Corinthians 8:13–15 tie these various threads together and suggest the relevance of this standard of eschatological equality for contemporary Christian generosity:

Equality... is being established by the people themselves through their own Spirit- led sharing. While God supplied Israel’s physical needs with manna and quail but did not change their spiritual condition, under the new covenant God is meeting the spiritual needs of the Corinthians in order that they might meet the physical needs of others (cf. 2 Cor 9:8–11). Paul’s expectation in 8:11 is thus one more expression of his confidence in the transforming power of the presence of God under the new covenant (cf. 3:3, 6, 18). For this reason, Paul leaves the amount of their giving up to the Corinthians, convinced that, as a new creation in Christ (5:17), the quantity of their giving will match the quality of their changed hearts (5:15).[41]

The Delimitation Of Christian Mission For The Poor

In addition to a call for a general orientation toward generosity (1 Tim 6:17–19; Eph 4:28; Acts 20:35), “fair sharing” or “equality” (NRSV and ESV, respectively, for isotes in 2 Cor 8:13–14) and “liberality” (Rom 12:8), Paul also provides restrictions on Christian social care. The Pastoral Epistles place limits on organized church-based support for the needy, such as requiring recipients of aid to participate in merciful deeds of Christian koinonia (1 Tim 5:10); such deeds are part of the purpose of Christian work (Eph 4:28). Under normal circumstances, one must rely on one’s own work or one’s family for support and not the church or illicit means of gain. The priority of work strongly suggests that Christian social care should exhibit a concern for human flourishing that includes employment. Paul called his disciples to follow his own model of contentment and care for self (Acts 20:35; 1 Thess 1:6, 2:9 –12; 1 Tim 6:6 –10).

In our day of democratic mass participation in the political process, Paul’s readers are interested in the political significance of his teaching. Paul’s commitment to the lordship of Jesus over all (Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10) suggests that the political significance of his teaching is extensive.[42] Yet it is probably unfair to press Paul for his opinion on political and social action outside the church. Martin Hengel explains: “[The first Christians] cannot give us a practicable programme of social ethics to solve the question of possessions, which has become so acute today.” In addition to the massive socio-political and economic differences between Paul’s day and ours, “the first Christians were a tiny minority, who were also politically suspect, [therefore] they could not strive in their ethical action for the social reform of the Roman empire of the time.” Hengel explains that this is the reason Paul focuses on the construction and care of the Christian community.[43]

Despite the degree of difficulty in applying Paul’s teaching universally or politically, Christians still have a responsibility to those outside the church, as Galatians 6:10, Romans 13:7, and much early Christian data make clear. Paul’s emphasis on care-within-the-church is not a rejection of beneficence outside the ecclesial sphere.[44] The limits on Christian social concern taught in Paul’s letters should not be pressed into service against Christian social obligation in the wider world. Paul offers no support for avoiding generous assistance to unbelievers afflicted by violence, natural disasters, and systemic injustice. Nor should Paul’s limits necessarily be taken as (say) a biblical mandate to require full-time work from single mothers who need assistance, thus leaving children of single-parent families under-parented. Paul insists that believers should pay taxes (presumably without grumbling, Phil 2:14), which were used to accomplish a whole raft of objectives in the ancient world, and his approach contrasts with at least some of the ways in which contemporary conservative and libertarian impulses manifest themselves especially in America. If Paul does not explicitly affirm such tax-producing enterprises, neither does he spend his energy condemning them.

But this is not to give a Pauline imprimatur to left-leaning political action. In contemporary political terms, was Paul conservative or liberal politically? The question is anachronistic, and in Paul’s letters we find that many of our most pressing questions regarding social and political concerns effectively are unaddressed. While there are grounds for exploring the broader implications of Paul’s teaching, the present essay does not provide the opportunity to explore them.[45]

We do not know if Paul was successful with his collection or not. But the effects of Paul’s emphases in the early history of the church point to the wisdom of his focus on a massive koinonia-engineering enterprise. Christians were unique in their emphasis on the degree of generosity and inclusion of the poor.[46] In just a few centuries, the emphasis of Paul and other early Christians ensured that the church would rival the Empire writ large as the fount of social care. Paul’s collection and the koinonia undergirding it formed a powerful critique of the Empire, its gods, and its wisdom—not through overt denigration, still less through open hostility, but through quiet counter-example.[47] Christian koinonia attempts to reflect God’s true intentions for new humanity in a state of shalom (Eph 2:15) a state only possible in King Jesus and his Father, not in Caesar and his gods.

The Dynamics Of Christian Giving: Paul And The Rhetoric Of Generosity

Paul subverts the normal expectation for gift-giving in the ancient world. Forceful social rules in the ancient world meant that a gift would inevitably require the recipient to respond appropriately with praise or a gift. In this system, generosity essentially functioned as an investment in one’s future well-being (illustrated well by Luke 14:12–14). Givers often tried to outdo one another in order to earn honour in the court of public opinion. Paul is capable of using such social rules himself when it suited his purposes, using the Macedonian’s generosity and the prospect of being shamed by failure to give (e.g., 2 Cor 8:1–5, 16 –21; 9:1–2). But because God is the ultimate author of grace, and given that there may be little return on the investment from Jewish Christians (Rom 15:30–31), the apostle undercuts standard social expectations for reciprocal giving.[48] Only once does Paul thank individuals for their service or their gifts: his gratitude is normally reserved for the God who stands behind their labors and gifts (i.e., 2 Cor 8:16; Phil 1:3– 6; Acts 28:15; 1 Cor 16:4 is the lone exception). Moreover, Paul expects that the Spirit-sealed bonds of Christian koinonia could lead to reciprocal care, but not simply on the basis of social rules, but rather on the basis of future need (2 Cor 8:13–15).

The methods of communication and giving in the ancient world are crucial for those seeking to understand Paul, for he often engages in practices that contemporary Christians might write-off as guilt-laden tactics. One must exercise caution when pulling a word, phrase or verse from Paul on generosity from its literary and cultural context as a universal truth. To take but one example, in the light of Paul’s rhetoric throughout 2 Corinthians 8– 9, it is doubtful to assume that Paul’s audience would have understood themselves to be completely free not to participate on the basis of 2 Corinthians 8:8, wherein Paul states he is not commanding their participation; and 9:7: “Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” An over-emphasis on freedom misses the flow of Paul’s rhetoric in the passage, which would not have struck notes such as “optional” or “free” in his ancient audience’s ears.[49] The surrounding verses constitute an appeal to the Corinthians to do what they had promised, so that the sudden appearance of fundraisers would not result in embarrassing forced preparations. Perhaps the flow of thought leads to the following translation of 9:7: “Each of you must give as you have previously made up your mind.”

Paul does not compel precise amounts, but participation in koinonia cannot be said to be merely voluntary. Giving on the basis of cheerfulness and desire is not fundamentally opposed to debt and reciprocity (Rom 13:8; 15:25–27), nor are desire and willingness opposed to responsibility (Gal 2:10). A variety of motives and inspirations stand side-by-side throughout Paul’s discussions of the collection.

Notably, Paul never seems embarrassed or ashamed when he speaks of his needs or those of others, including the need to contribute for the sake of others. The same courage he employs in evangelism can be seen in his instruction on koinonia as the appropriate social and economic response to God’s good news. Paul also anticipates and warns against growing weariness in “doing good” (Gal 6:9 ESV, 2 Thess 3:11–13), and his lengthiest address on money, 2 Corinthians 8– 9, was a follow-up letter and not an initial appeal for assistance.

The Dimensions Of Christian Mission

In Colossians Paul provides grounds for moving application beyond “Jew-Gentile” relationships and into the realm of ethnicity more broadly. The unification of “Jew and Greek... barbarian and Scythian” constitutes the “one new humanity” (3:9 –10).[50] Not only was the collection cross-cultural, cross-ethnic, and intercontinental in nature; it took place across something like modern denominational fault lines. The recipients of Paul’s gifts were Torah-observant: they were keeping Jewish diet and calendar, and at least some were insisting on circumcision. A number of them would have objected to Paul’s Torah-free teaching and Gentile communities. In return many Gentiles found Jewish practices repulsive. Accepting fellow believers—or their financial assistance—as one family across such religious, cultural and ethnic barriers required a great deal of charity and no small amount of instruction in Christian sacrifice (for instance, Rom 14–15; Acts 16:3). Like most denominations today, at least some of these Jewish believers would interpret Scripture and apply tradition in ways that amplified and fortified the distinctives that separated them from other parts of the family. Perhaps Paul’s collection could be compared to the collection of resources from wine-swilling, covenantal, amillennial, Pentecostal, Korean Presbyterians to be sent to a group of impoverished and marginalized teetotalling, dispensationalist, cessationist, premillennial, pew- sitting, Baptist congregations in Eastern Europe. Such is koinonia.

Caveat And Conclusion: The Drama Of Christian Mission

Paul’s collection for the poor provides a valuable glimpse into the mission required by the gospel. The power of Paul’s theology and his crucial role as an evangelist and church planter tempt interpreters to focus only on these aspects of his teaching and ministry. And this much is true: Paul ’s collection for the poor could never have occurred without his massive efforts in evangelism and church planting among unreached people groups. All aspects of Paul’s mission—whether “spiritual” or “physical” (to use the unfortunate contemporary terms)—are predicated on the need for conversion, a change of citizenship from “the domain of darkness... to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:13). Paul gives no reason to jettison evangelism and church planting for mission to the poor, even if he puts off his mission to Spain in order to deliver the international collection for the poor to Jerusalem (Rom 15:23–28).

Conversely, if mission to the poor lacks an economic, relational, or social dimension, evangelical church planting stands at the threshold of bankruptcy. Generosity, sacrifice, and koinonia (sharing ) with others in God’s family are not optional but integral. With Paul’s other teachings, his mission to the poor guides Christians into participation in a family that extends across all manner of social and geographic boundaries.

Contemporary believers must not neglect what can be learned from this advocate for Christian mission to the poor. Thanks to the collection, we know more about Paul’s efforts for the poor than those of any other early Christian, including those who offer comparatively fuller theologies on the poor and Christian social concern (such as James and Luke). Paul does not present an abstract theology of social concern, but dramatizes the gospel through his work for the poor. In the collection we see the whole of Paul’s theology in action, and we learn that Christian mission to the poor was neither optional nor secondary for the apostle and his churches.

Notes

1. The bulk of this essay is derived from Jason Hood, “Theology in Action: Paul and Christian Social Care,” in Transforming the World: The Gospel and Social Responsibility, ed. Jamie Grant and Dewi Hughes (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 129 –45. That essay has not been published in North America. It is adapted here with permission.
2. In this essay—which is intended to serve the church practically and missiologically as much as academically—the letters ascribed to Paul in the canon are treated as a unit deriving from a single author, the canonical Paul, and biblical data is used regardless of origin (i.e., Acts and Pastoral Letters are in play). If the academy learns something from this approach, so much the better.
3. S. McKnight, “Collection for the Saints,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne and R. Martin (Leicester and Downers Grove: IVP, 1993) 143, emphasis original. See D. Garland, 2 Corinthians (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999) 386 – 90; M. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: a Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 312-18, 402: “The hard-fought-for collection... to some extent consumed Paul for years.”
4. Gorman, Apostle, 312. Note the almost total absence of the collection in (among other texts and studies) the Anchor Bible Dictionary and B. Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Leicester and Downers Grove: IVP, 2001).
5. Most aspects of Paul’s life, letters, ministry and theology are contentious matters in contemporary scholarship; the collection is no exception. A full survey of the social implications of Paul’s ministry, theology and the collection is beyond the scope of the present study. For fuller studies, see D. Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992); S. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); David J. Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem and Its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts WUNT 2.248 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); commentaries by Garland; M. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), and especially Bruce Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World (Grant Rapids: Eerdmans), 2010. Some scholars treat Paul’s efforts over time separately; this study follows other scholars who value treating all of Paul’s efforts under the same umbrella. See McKnight; Gorman, 312; Joubert, “Collection, The” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible A-C, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006), 698; S. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 330.
6. J. D. G. Dunn, for example, rules out Galatians 2:10 in his discussion of the collection (The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 706. Longenecker argues that the collection is not in view in Galatians 2:10, and that we have here a general admonition. See reception historical evidence for this approach in his essay “The Poor of Galatians 2:10: The Interpretive Paradigm of the First Centuries,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, ed. Longencker and Kelly Liebengood (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 204-20. In any event, the collection flows from this admonition.
7. D. J. Downs, ‘ “The Offering of the Gentiles” in Romans 15.16’, JSNT 29 (2006) 173– 86; L. Hurtado, “The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians,” JSNT 5 (1979) 46 – 62 (esp. 53-57), believes Paul addresses the collection in Gal 6.6 –10. See C. Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: a Biblical Theology of Material Possessions (NSBT 7; Leicester: IVP, 1999), 178 n. 5 for moderate critique of Hurtado’s argument.
8. Marshall, Acts (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 323: “these were probably the persons appointed by the churches to take their shares of the collection to Jerusalem”; cf. McKnight, “Collection,” 143-44 and Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 561– 62.
9. As the NIV translation of Acts 24:17 suggests. See Marshall, Acts, 378-79; G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 804 n. 5; Garland, 2 Corinthians, 386 n. 72; Dunn, Theology, 707.
10. McKnight, “Collection,” 144; see similarly Joubert, “Collection,” 699.
11. McKnight, “Collection,” 146.
12. Theology, 707.
13. Some scholars question the relevance of poverty per se for the collection, seeing instead factors of a political and social nature (Schneider, Good of Affluence: Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002] 208– 9, drawing on Bassler, God and Mammon, 92– 96; but contrast Garland, 2 Corinthians, 387 n).
14. Gorman, Apostle, 313, helpfully offers seven reasons for the collection.
15. Eph 2-3, Gal 3:27-29, Col 3:10-11, 14-15.
16. The strategic place of the collection in Romans 15 reinforces these points (Beker, Paul, 72).
17. See now especially Kelly Kapic with Justin Borger, God So Loved He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).
18. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 331, emphasis added.
19. Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Temple (Baker Academic, 2010) points out the economic significance of the temple status of the church; 70-74, 92– 99, 145-47.
20. Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 1. It is likely that, in the collection, Paul sees an opportunity to undercut opposition to many facets of his ministry.
21. McKnight, “Collection,” 143, correlates this plan with the data in Acts 20:16, 22.
22. Paul illustrates in his actions the approach espoused by C. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Leicester: IVP, 2006) 61, 316 –23, on the relative importance of evangelism and mercy ministry.
23. Such a wider emphasis helps overcome the uncertainty that dogs the disputed matter of the boundaries of the collection.
24. Tithe was not practiced outside Palestine; it is anchored to the Promised Land in Deut. 26, Malachi, and Tobit 1-2; cf. Paul’s emphasis on the removal of OT legislation. See Mark Allan Powell, Giving to God: The Bible’s Good News about Living a Generous Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 161– 62; Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, 198– 99 and his conclusion and autobiographical comments, 241-53; and two articles by D. Croteau and A. Köstenberger: “ ‘Will a Man Rob God?’ (Malachi 3:8): A Study of Tithing in the Old and New Testaments,” BBR 16.1 (2006), 53-77; and “Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving: A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles,” BBR 16.2 (2006), 237– 60.
25. 1 Tim 6:17-19; 1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 8:12; cf. Acts 11:29.
26. B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia; P & R, 1950), 565; from a different tradition and era, see Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation , A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper, 1999), 46: “... the fundamental norm of Pauline ethics is the christomorphic life. To imitate Christ is also to follow the apostolic example of surrendering one’s own prerogatives and interests.”
27. To cite a few passages: Rom 8:17; 15:2-7; 1 Cor 4:8-17; 9; 11:1; 2 Cor 4:7-18; 12:7-10, 15; 13:3-5; cf. Phil 2:4-11; 3:10-11; Eph 5:2; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6 –7; throughout 2 Tim; cf. Acts 20:33-35. For a full treatment see my forthcoming book from IVP on the imitation of God, Jesus, and the saints.
28. Perhaps the Macedonians (2 Cor 8:1-5) have grasped this vision. On the cross as fundamental to Christian ethics, see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper, 1999). On pp. 19 –26 Hays lays out central foci for ethics in Paul which are similar to those presented here. Gorman brings out “cross-shaped” nature of Pauline discipleship in Apostle and in his earlier book, Cruciformity: Paul ’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). This theme is often missing in evangelical treatments on the significance of the cross in the New Testament; see Hood, “Cross Imitation in Mark’s Gospel, Redemptive History, and Contemporary Evangelicalism,” Evangelical Quarterly 81.2 (2009), 116 –25.
29. The application of imitation of Jesus to generosity shows that imitation is not a matter of wrote copying, but is rather “creative imitation” (so Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Doctrine [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 442). Vanhoozer adds (p. 397): “This is how we follow the drama of Christ’s life: not by repeating it in uniform fashion but by repeating it so as to continue the through line of the Word’s communicative action in order to incarnate the same basic ‘idea’ (i.e., the knowledge of God) and action (i.e., the love of God) under different conditions.”) The need to contextualize the imitation of Jesus makes human examples of obedience invaluable. R. Michael Allen has argued for the importance of “ethical triangulation” as “a formal principle by which the material differences” between Jesus and his human followers “may be navigated; triangulating imitation provides an hermeneutical matrix within which Christian witness ought to commence and forever remain.” “[S]ocio-contextual differences may benegotiated by looking to other faithful norms, cross-referencing their manners of witness, and analyzing the redemptive substance of their pluriform testimony.” The Christ’s Faith: A Dogmatic Account (Studies in Systematic Theology; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 359 – 60.
30. “Thus cruciformity cannot be inscribed or legislated; it cannot be codified or routinized. It can only be remembered and recited, hymned and prayed, and then lived by the power of the Spirit and the work of the inspired individual and corporate imagination.” M. Gorman, Cruciformity, 383 (see similarly R. B. Hays). There is some truth here; yet a great deal of OT legislation and wisdom points readers in the same direction (see below on Waltke, or the book of Ruth), even if NT interpreters are slow to see such links.
31. On Abraham see especially Calvin, Inst. 2.10.11; Heb 11:8-10, 13-16; Jas 2:21-22.
32. B. Waltke with C. Yu, Old Testament Theology: a Canonical and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2007) 289; Waltke, Proverbs 1-15 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 97– 98. See Jamie Grant, “ ‘Why Bother with the Vulnerable?’ The Wisdom of Social Care,” in Transforming the World, 51– 67.
33. See now Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: The Origin and Meaning of a Pauline Metaphor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); cf. S. Wheeler, Wealth as Peril and Obligation: The New Testament on Possessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
34. 2 Cor 8:13-15.
35. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) 369.
36. For example, Schneider, Good of Affluence, 208-10.
37. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 580– 83 for discussion and the correct conclusion; pace Garland, 2 Corinthians, 410.
38. Hospitality is linked to material care for the saints (see esp. Rom 12:13).
39. See Calvin, Inst. 4.17.40; Blomberg’s treatment in Neither Poverty nor Riches; and Hays, First Corinthians, 194-206. According to Fee, First Corinthians, 560 and nn., Chrysostom and other Fathers clearly understood the thrust of the passage, but “sacramentalism” and “pietistic” readings of this passage emphasized personal introspection and have led the church to downplay Paul’s actual intention, which was more corporate than personal.
40. J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomistic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 61; citing his fuller argument in Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 33-36, and cf. 37. See also Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC; Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1996), 3.
41. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 341 (emphases original); see also 366. As Hafemann notes, Acts seems to share this vision (2:42-47 and 4:34-37); I. Howard Marshall, “Luke’s ‘Social’ Gospel: The Social Theology of Luke-Acts,” in Transforming the World, 118 n. 9: “Our suggestion is that Luke makes it clear enough that the ideal was intended to be upheld and practiced elsewhere, though not necessarily in precisely the same manner. Having emphasized what happened in Jerusalem, Luke had no need to repeat himself later; he expects his readers to take certain things ‘as read.’ ”
42. See Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999).
43. Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (trans. J. Bowden; London/Philadelphia: SCM/Fortress, 1974) 41; Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, 247; Hays, Moral Vision, 33: “[Paul] articulates no basis for a general ethic applicable to those outside the church.”
44. The Christian standard of neighbour-love entails such a focus.
45. The issues are complex. See Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1999). More clearly, Paul’s teaching supports deeply entrenched mission and involvement in community and shalom-building with a gospel-centered mentality. See the relatively sophisticated treatment by Gornik, To Live in Peace: Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), who uses his experience living and serving in a marginalized community to good effect. See also his “The Rich and the Poor in Pauline Theology,” Urban Mission 9 (1991), 15-26.
46. See Nicholas Perrin, Jesus the Temple, 71 n. 113, on what appears to be institutional failure in Judaism, citing especially David Seccombe,”Was There Organized Charity in Jerusalem before the Christians,” JTS 29 (1978), 140-43; Bruce Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 92 on widespread absence of pagan care for the poor in Greco-Roman context.
47. The collection is often neglected in Imperial and Anti-Imperial readings of Paul; see Wan, “Collection for the Saints as Anticolonial Act: Implications of Paul’s Ethnic Reconstruction,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, FS K. Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity Press Intl., 2000), 191-215.
48. See Joubert. David deSilva offers a readable introduction to benefaction, patronage and reciprocity in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Leicester and Downers Grove: IVP, 2000) 95-156. He makes the case that when Paul engages in reciprocity, it is frequently God who is regarded as the primary benefactor (see especially 153-56), rewarding those who give.
49. S. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 339, 358-59; pace Schneider, Good of Affluence.
50. Crucially, this description arises in the context of ethical responsibility and treatment of others (Col 3:5-17). G. Peterman overreaches in his contemporary application of the collection (“Social Reciprocity and Gentile Debt to Jews in Romans 15:26 –27,” JETS 50 [2007], 735-46). He fails to consider adequately Paul’s diverse motives, universalizes the work of the first generations of believing Jews, and fails to note the possible ongoing relevance of the collection for ethnic and cultural barrier-breaking: Paul thinks reciprocity can and should go both ways (2 Cor 8:14), not simply to the Jews!