RICH AND POOR IN PAUL

Paul’s View on Riches and Money

Neither the appropriate use of riches nor the plight of the economically deprived are dominant
concerns for Paul, who usually spiritualizes the vocabulary of riches. For Paul, riches mainly
denotes the character and activity of God and Christ which is the spiritual blessings and/of
salvation – (e.g., Rom. 2.4; 9.23; 2 Cor. 8.9; Eph. 1.7, 18; 2.4, 7). He also refers to typical Jewish
piety and Greco-Roman moral teachings of the time, such as generosity (Rom. 12.8, 13; 2 Cor.
8.2; Eph. 4.28; 1 Tim. 6.17 ) and hospitality (1 Tim. 5.10) with warnings against pride (1 Tim.
6.17) and greed (1 Cor. 5.11; 1 Tim. 3.8). 1 Tim. 6.10 seems to reflect a popular Cynic-Stoic
moral teaching of the period: “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Paul’s focus of
generosity is devoted to the collection for the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2.10; 1 Cor. 16.1–4; 2
Cor 8.1 – 9.15; Rom. 15.25–31) as an important symbol of unity between Jewish and gentile
believers with an appeal to material and spiritual reciprocity.1

Passages

Real Poor

Rom 15:26: The poor: This is a term for the needy among Jerusalem Christians; it is not a title
for that community as such. Even though the collection was the result of freewill offerings, the
Gentile Christians are acknowledging thereby their indebtedness to the mother church of
Jerusalem. The Gentile Christians have shared in the spiritual benefits of the Jewish Christians,
the converts to Christ; so they now share their material benefits with the poor of Jerusalem.2

Gal 2:10: Remember the poor: The only added charge of the “council.” They are probably the
“poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:26), i.e., those economically poor when
compared with Gentile Christians of Hellenistic cities, but also those of Palestinian Jewish-
Christian anawim piety.3

Allegorical Poor
1 Cor 13:3
2 Cor 6:10
2 Cor 8:9: The immeasurable inequality between the recipients of Christ’s gift and Christ, who
sacrificially gave himself for them, should make the believers gracious to those who are poor. In
motivating the church of Corinth to give to the poor Christians in Jerusalem, Paul reminds them
1
T.E.Schmidt, “Riches and Poverty” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 826.
2
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Letter to Romans,” Jerome, 867
3
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Letter to Galatians,” Jerome, 784.
1
that Christ in grace became poor for them although he was rich (2 Cor 8:9). A genuine love will
be demonstrated in care for the poor (2 Cor 8:8). 2 Corinthians 8–9 is filled with such
correspondence between God’s grace and the believers’ generosity in contributing to the poor.
God is the actor. Giving to the poor is prompted by God’s grace (2 Cor 8:6–7), which enables
believers to give even beyond their ability (2 Cor 8:1–4). God’s abundant grace provides ample
means for every good action; the poor will thank God for the surpassing grace in the givers (2
Cor 9:8, 13–14). The distribution to the poor is a harvest of the seed provided by God; God’s
grace flowing through them is manifested in the form of justice (2 Cor 9:9–10).4

The arrangement which Paul seeks among the Christians in response to God’s grace is one of
equality (2 Cor 8:13–14). In Hellenistic Judaism the ideal government would distribute for “the
necessary needs” of life so that there would be no “excess for luxury” nor lack (Philo Jos. 243;
cf. 2 Cor 8:15). That the recipients are the poor and that this standard of justice is applied reveals
elements of a social ethic. The logic within these chapters, however, is the social requirements of
grace. Some view that “the poor” (Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10) was a title of the Jerusalem Christians,
denoting their piety, not their economic need.5 Evidence is lacking, however, for such a technical
use of the term by Christians at the date of Paul’s writing. 6

2 Cor 9:9

Real Rich
1 Thim 6:9,10, 17, 18

Money
1 Thess 2:5
2 Ti 3:2

Allegory
1 Cor 4:8
2 Cor 8:9

Its image of early Christianity developed at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1882
Hasenclever argued that Christianity had infiltrated the upper classes already towards the end of
the first century. In 1900 Knopf identified the oldest Gentile Christian congregations as socially
stratified communities. But their reconstruction of the sociology of early Christianity was already
disputed at that time. In 1894/95 Engels drew an analogy between early Christianity and the
labour movement of his time. In 1908 Deissmann located early Christianity in the lower classes.
There was neither an ‘old consensus’ in the nineteenth century nor did there develop a ‘new
consensus’ in the twentieth century. Some scholars, such as Judge, Malherbe and Grant,
emphasized the high percentage of members from the elevated classes in early Christianity. They
tended to say that early Christianity was much more spread among ‘normal’ citizens than was

4
Find source
5
Find who
6
Find source
2
commonly believed. All agreed that in the wake of rich house patrons many poor people also
entered the congregations. Others wished to adhere to the assignment of early Christianity to the
lower classes but stressed that there was a small dominant elite of well-to-do people in the Early
Christian communities, which forced the congregations to develop a high degree of social
cohesion to counteract the antagonistic tendencies inherent in their structure.7

Meggitt is right in emphasizing that the upper class comprised no more than perhaps 1 per cent
of the population. But within this elite we must distinguish between the imperial upper class of
the senators and knights and the local upper classes of the decurions. And within these ranks or
ordines we must further differentiate between those who exercized power and those who did not.
Women were excluded from political power even in the higher ordines. Moreover, there is a
consensus that apart from a very few exceptions we do not find Christians in offices exercising
political power during the time before Constantine. But among the very early Christians we find
women of a high social status. 8

We can indeed imagine, as is presupposed in Acts, that some rather well-to-do women were
Christians or promoters of the Christian congregations from the outset, because women did not
have to play any active role in the public cults and could avoid idolatry much more than high-
ranking men. They had less difficulty in becoming Christians than their husbands. Particular
cases show that in the course of the first century Christianity could even rise to the imperial
upper class. Flavia Domitilla, a member of Caesar’s family, was probably a Christian. She was
banned (according to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.18.4) on account of her Christian confession. The
theory which says that people with inconsistency of status were attracted by Christianity could be
applied to her and other high-ranking women. It is possible that women and also other members
of the upper class such as the disputed aedile Erastus at Corinth were Christians. But these
women were rare exceptions.9

great majority of the city population, which was situated below the class of the decurions, that is,
beneath the politically powerful families. There is no doubt that most Christians belonged to this
urban majority. At all events there were huge differences of prosperity between the common
people beneath the decurions, which may explain why these common people distinguished
between the rich and the poor among themselves. Also the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of the
rich and the poor among Christians and attaches great significance to their relationship (Hermas,
Sim. 2.51; cf. Jas 1.9-10; 2.1-11). Both in reality and in its interpretation there existed distinctive
social differences among the population below the local power elite, even if all groups were far
removed from the huge possessions and the power of the imperial upper class. 10

T. Schmeller observes that the religious clubs preferred rotating offices. The reason for this was
that their members were so poor that they were unable to afford the expenses of an office, unless
all members were equally charged and took turns.30 The professional clubs, however, had long-
7

8
9

10
Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure Of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks On J.J. Meggitt, Paul,
Poverty And Survival,” in JSNT 84 (2001), 71.
3
term offices, because the officials were affluent enough to pay the expenses of their office for a
much longer term. If we follow the abovementioned idea of T. Schmeller, we can see the
permanent offices in early Christianity as an indication of moderate prosperity among those
holding the office. We may thus conclude that long-term or even lifelong offices within the
church (with significant exceptions) involved a rather elevated social status. 11

Was Paul rich or Poor

It is often asserted that Paul came from a wealthy background. E.P Sanders maintains that
“Paul’s letters show him to be a man of what we would now call middle-class upbringing,” and
consequently his poverty was voluntary, and in Paul’s letters we do not hear the voice of the
lowest level of Greco-Roman society.12 The evidences for such a position are his Roman and
Tarsan citizenships; his education; his experience of and attitude to work; his reaction to social
affronts; his ability to socialize with the privileged; the tenor of his ethics; his treatment by the
Roman authorities; his lineage; his Pharisaism; and his employment of a secretary. 13

But Justin Maggitt denies all these features as having no value in determining Paul’s economic
past. He for example explains that the small number of Roman citizens that lived outside the
capital were not aristocrats. The overwhelming majority of them acquired their citizenship by
being either manumitted by a Roman citizen or by being a descendant of a person who had been
so manumitted and thus it can tell us nothing about the apostle’s supposed wealth. 14

Socio-Economic Level of Pauline Churches

Much recent study has focused on the socioeconomic level of the Pauline churches (Gerd
Theissen 1982; Wayne A Meeks 1983). Stegemann (1984: 31–38) speaks of a new consensus
according to which most of the early Christian communities were made up predominantly of the
little people (pénēs), including neither the destitute (ptōchós) nor the wealthy. However, the
interpretation of texts such as 1 Cor 1:26–29 (stressing lack of honor) continue to be disputed
(Stegemann 1984: 35–36). Since more spacious houses and leadership for house churches tended
to come from the more affluent and educated sectors, situations arose (1 Cor 11:17–32) in which
a kind of conflict could flare up between some who became drunk (11:21) and others who
hungered and had nothing (11:22) even in the Lord’s Supper. Theological elements so basic as
the Eucharist (―For I received …, 1 Cor 11:23–33; cf. 11:17–22), variations in spiritual gifts (1
Corinthians 12; 14) and the urgency of agape love (chap. 13) are best understood in the context
of the socioeconomic conflict or class struggle between more affluent and poorer members.
However, despite such conflicts and Paul’s deprivations, a degree of accumulated wealth
(capital) was to be expected in the house churches he founded: more affluent churches are
expected to save up and share with poorer ones, and parents are expected to save for their
children (2 Cor 12:14). Such provisions provide continuity with the teaching in the Deutero-
Pauline letters.15
11
Gerd Theissen, “The Social Structure Of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks On J.J. Meggitt, Paul,
Poverty And Survival,” in JSNT 84 (2001), 77.
12
Sanders, Paul, 10 cited by Justin Meggit, Paul Poverty and Survival , 80.
13
Sanders, Paul, 10 cited by Justin Meggit, Paul Poverty and Survival , 81.
14
Sanders, Paul, 10 cited by Justin Meggit, Paul Poverty and Survival , 81.
15
Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor and Poverty,”ABD, 7051.
4
Genuine Pauline letters and Poor

Paul’s proximity to Jesus’ praxis and teaching on poverty is best reflected in the catalogs of
affliction/oppression in 1 Cor 4:10–13a; 2 Cor 4:8–10; 6:4b–10; 11:23b–29; 12:10; Rom 8:35;
Phil 4:12.16 Linguistically, all seven uses of the more explicit vocabulary for poor/poverty occur
in the unquestioned Paulines.

In Gal 2:10, continuing to remember the destitute (ptōchós) is viewed as a nonnegotiable element
in Christian praxis common to both Petrine and Pauline circles; the weak elements (stoicheia), is
also metaphorically described as beggarly (ptōchós) in Gal 4:9.

In 2 Cor 6:10 the apostle concludes the catalog of affliction, describing his own lifestyle as poor
[ptōchós] but enriching many; having nothing, and yet possessing all things. There are concrete
expressions of injustices suffered, with poverty and deprivation often consequent, dominate the
lists.17

Other expressions are found in Rom 15:26 (ptōchós) and 2 Corinthians 8–9, where Paul deals
with the offering for the destitute among the saints in Jerusalem. The only NT use of pénēs (the
more common word for ―poor in classical Greek) comes in 2 Cor 9:9 in the LXX-based citation
of Ps 112:9 (He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his justice endures forever). Still greatly
disputed is the interpretation of Paul’s reference to the incarnational paradigm for the offering:
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he
became poor (verb ptōchéo, only here in NT), so that you through his poverty (ptōcheia) might
become rich. Commentaries commonly have suggested Neoplatonic and metaphorical
interpretations of this passage.18

Deutero-Pauline letters

2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians generally occupy a place between the seven
unquestioned Pauline letters and the Pastorals. 2 Thessalonians has much in common with 1
Thessalonians in perspectives on poverty. Both stress the Church’s experience of oppression in
the form of persecution, which inevitably broke the artisan class and manual laborers addressed.
In 2 Thessalonians particularly, distorted eschatological speculation, resulting in idleness, only
augmented the problem (2:1–12; 3:3–12; cf. 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 4:11–12 ). Paul’s apocalyptic
gospel, however, created viable community (Meeks 1983: 174) and instilled a more sober hope. 19
Elitist Greek prejudices against manual labor were aggressively corrected by strong exhortation
to work and by Church discipline (2 Thess 4:10, 14–15).

In Colossians no explicit language for poverty occurs. However, as in the unquestioned Paulines,
oppression and persecution directed against Paul and certain churches may be viewed as the
basic cause of suffering, imprisonment, and poverty. In the Haustafeln (Col 3:18–4:1), the
inclusion of husbands, fathers, and lords (3:19, 21; 4:1) may indicate an upward penetration of
the gospel in the social structure (cf. 1 Peter), but the priority given to women (3:15) and

16
Hodgson 1983
17
Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor and Poverty,”ABD, 7051.
18
Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor and Poverty,”ABD, 7051.
19
Meeks 1983: 174
5
children (3:20), plus the more detailed treatment of slaves (3:22–25) suggests that the weaker
and poorer classes continue to dominate in the Church membership.

Colossians places special emphasis on a false philosophical teaching (proto-Gnosticism?) that

The Pastoral Letters

The lowly socioeconomic status of the churches in Ephesus is reflected in 1 Timothy, especially
in the detailed instructions given to counteract ecclesiastical bureaucratic paternalism in the care
for ―real (impoverished) widows (5:3–16) and the maintenance of social responsibility in the
extended family; in the qualifications for deacons (and deaconesses? 3:8–13) who minister
primarily to the poor; and in the instructions to slaves (household servants, 6:1–2; cf. Tit 2:9–10;
note the omission of parallel instructions for slave owners; cf. Philemon). Women of means are
frequent converts, but exhorted to minimize socioeconomic differences by their simple dress
style (1 Tim 2:9; cf. 1 Pet 3:3). The good works, so central in Titus (1:6; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 13–14; cf.
1 Tim 2:10; 5:25; 2 Tim 2:21), represent the chief aim of redemption (Tit 2:14) and the second
great purpose of inspired Scripture (2 Tim 3:14–17; Hanks 1986a: 19). These are works
particularly defined as undertaken on behalf of those who lack the essentials of life (Tit 3:14; cf.
Matt 25:31–46; Miranda 1974: 18). Often cited without reference to the above contexts and
teaching are two texts in 1 Timothy commonly said to represent a bourgeois adjustment—or
contradiction—of Jesus‘ radical teaching in Luke. The first, 6:6–10, counsels those like Timothy,
who have only the bare necessities of existence, to be content and avoid the love of money (―a
root of all kinds of evil, 6:10). The second, 6:17–19, instructs Timothy how to reform the lives of
the rich. Whereas Jesus in Luke often called for total renunciation of wealth, the ―Paul of the
Pastorals would have his emissary in Ephesus simply advocate generosity and good works.
Undoubtedly a certain diversity of historical contexts and teaching is found here. However, the
generosity and good works that would be demanded of the rich in an impoverished church
undoubtedly would involve something far more stringent than in a modern affluent neighborhood
—especially when backed up by the radical examples of Jesus and Paul (cf. Zaccheus under
Luke). The ―generosity to be demanded ―(koinōnikós, 6:18) may involve a kind of solidarity
or pooling of resources and sharing that really has no limits (cf. Acts 2; 4). Another factor is that
the Jesus of Luke‘s gospel often confronts the unconverted rich directly (6:20–23), while in the
Pastorals, ―Paul speaks to wealthy converts—and then only indirectly through his emissary
(―command them …, 6:18). Factors that produce poverty indicated in the Pastorals include
especially persecution, oppression, and injustice (2 Tim 2:19; 1 Tim 1:19); idolatry and the false
teaching of the pseudoprophets (2 Tim 2:16); and coveting (2 Tim 2:22; 3:6; 4:3; 1 Tim 3:3–8;
6:9; Tit 1:7–11; 2:12). As in the early Paulines, the consummation of God‘s kingdom in the
Parousia stands as the ultimate solution, but is no longer expected to occur within Paul‘s lifetime
(cf. 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:8; Tit 2:13). The evangelization of the world with the gospel remains (at

20
Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor and Poverty,”ABD, 7051.
6
least implicitly) as good news that gives special hope to the poor, as evidenced by the ready
response of widows and slaves. Salvation is never limited to a Platonic heavenly sphere (2 Tim
4:18), but includes material relief in this life (2 Tim 4:18). The church is the ―pillar and ground
of truth, particularly because it represents the new alternative community where God‘s just and
loving purpose for all humanity begins to be realized. Prophetic denunciation of persecution and
oppression may be seen in the remarks on Alexander the coppersmith (2Tim 4:14; cf. 1 Tim
6:13), but the false teachers condemned held numerous tenets that would be detrimental
especially to the poorer members (see food prohibitions, 1 Tim 4:3). Thus, even proper church
government (so central a concern in 1 Timothy and Titus) becomes a means for ensuring that the
churches, like their apostle, ―remember the poor (Gal 2:10). It might even be argued that
historically, these most ―conservative epistles have contributed most to economic development
and the liberation of oppressed classes in those countries which early extended the Calvinistic
interpretation of their teaching on church government to the national political level (López
Michelson 1947). 21

The Corinthian Food Problem

Gerd Theissen’s three articles concerning the Corinthian Christian community apply sociological
analysis to 1 Corinthians.22

Response to quarreling and wisdom 1 Cor 1:10-4:21

Quarreling at Corinth led to dissensions and it centered around several people. Perhaps two
major parties were those of Apollos and Paul. Apollos would have appealed to the educated and
intellectual minority of Corinthian converts and Paul to the uneducated and poor majority. This
seems clear from Paul’s argument against the emphasis on wisdom (1:10-4:21) and his reference
to himself as “the rubbish of the world.”

The words in 1:26 that not many are “wise by human standards” or “powerful” or of “noble
birth” imply social differences in the church at Corinth. In the social makeup of that church, the
majority belonged to the lower and poorer classes, but a group of wealthy and influential people
may have been a dominant minority. Paul speaks primarily to that minority, which was ignoring
the poorer majority.23

Eating Meats 8:1-11:1

It was scarcely possible for a convert living in any Graeco-Roman city to avoid the problem of
eating meat that had been offered to a deity. Such offerings often involved only the burning of
some of the intestines, so the rest of the meat was fine for eating and could be bought in local
shops. Many Corinthian converts had been pagans, and Paul had insisted upon a complete break
21
Thomas D. Hanks, “Poor and Poverty,”ABD, 7052.
22
These articles are “Social Integration and Sacramental Activity: An Analysis fo 1 Cor. 11:17-34,” “Social
Stratificaiton in the Analysis of Theological Quarrel.”
23
Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament; A Critical Introduction (Australia: Wadsworth, 2001), 263.
7
with their pagan past. How could they do that and still eat meat, since almost all meat in the city
butcher shops had been offered to pagan gods? Some people felt that such meat might be
contaminated by association with idol worship, and that they would therefore be guilty of
idolatry if they ate it. Here again, there may be social implications. The “weak,” for example,
were the poor, who rarely ate meat because they could not afford it. However, they would have
eaten it at pagan festivals, where it was free; so after becoming believers, they found it hard to
eat meat without associating it with those events. Their consciences would then bother them. 24

The ancients were not frequent meat-eaters, except at special banquets and sacrifices. The
normal diet consisted of different types of Porridge, or barley meal, olives a little wine, perhaps
some fish as a relish, and meat on holidays or special occasions. Thus, a middle or lower-status
person buying in the market would seldom purchase anything that came from the temple. Gerd
Theissen suggests, “the weak” in Corinth are poorer Corinthians for whom eidolothuta was
especially likely to have religious associations, because they had eaten it before only at some
public temple feast or on a holiday in the temple. This would explain their strong conscience.

1 Corinthians 8-10 provides further evidence that there were some well-to-do members of Paul’s
congregation in Corinth, as is shown by their meat eating in home and temple, and that they were
causing Paul no end of trouble, It is surely this elite group that was bandying about the slogans
Paul repeats in ch. 8. The Corinthian congregation was socially diverse, and “the weak” were
being scandalized by the behavior of the well-to-do.25

The collection for the saints in Jerusalem (16:1-4)

The Corinthians are to save some money “on the first day of every week,” that is, Once a week .
for the needy believers in Jerusalem. Paul will send their contribution to the needy, Who are a
special concern to him (see 2 Corinthians 8-9) 26

The offering for the saints (8:1-9:15)

Paul urges the Corinthians to give generously because equality comes through sharing (8: 1-15).
Titus and others will come to collect (8:16-9:5). Generous gifts bring blessing from God (9:6-
15). 27

Divisions in Lord’s supper28

24
Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament; A Critical Introduction (Australia: Wadsworth, 2001), 265.
25
Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth; A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians
(Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1995), 190.
26
Edwin D. Freed, , 2001), 268.
27
Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament; A Critical Introduction (Australia: Wadsworth, 2001), 270.
28
David J. Downs, “Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theolgy” in Engaging Economics:
New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception edited by Bruce W. Longenecker & Kelly D. Liebengood
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 151.
8
According to Paul in 1 Cor 11:17-34, divisions marked the Corinthian church’s celebration of the
Lord’s Supper. Some members of the community -presumably the wealthier and those with more
leisure time were arriving at the meal earlier, devouring much of the food and drink, and
shaming the “have nots” (11:21-22). Gerd Theissen and others have argued that these factions
resulted from the practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper in ways consistent with the practices
and values of the Greco-Roman patronage system.54 Often during banquets hosted by patrons,
true friends and privileged guests of the patron would receive the choice wine and the most
honored seats, whereas the patron’s clients would be treated with contempt.55 Paul challenges
these practices in Corinth by refusing to commend the Corinthians (11:22), by reminding them
that their celebration of the Lord’s Supper is rooted in the narrative of Jesus’ self-giving love for
others (11:23-26), by warning them that those who eat and drink without discerning “the body”
(of believers) risk judgment (11:27-32), and by encouraging them to wait for one another when
gathering for the meal (11:33). Paul does not want those observing the Lord’s Supper at Corinth
to exemplify the practices and values of Roman patronage. Instead, he encourages the
Corinthians to recognize that unless the community embodies a concern for others, particularly
the poor, modeled on the self‘giving love of Jesus Christ, it cannot rightly proclaim the Lord’s
death. This community should order its dining practices in

light of the economy of God --an economy that welcomes the poor to share in the abundance of
the table of the Lord.

The Collection for the Saints29

One economic endeavor of utmost importance for the apostle Paul was the monetary collection
that he organized among the Gentile congregations of his mission for the poor among the
believing community in Jerusalem. Paul appears to have spent a considerable amount of time and
energy in organiza

ing the relief fund, as is seen in his comments about the project in 1 Cor 16:14; 2 Cor 821-935;
and Rom 15:25-32. Gathering the contribution in Corinth was no easy task for Paul and his
associates, in large part due to the tensions between Paul and the Corinthians related to the
economic matters that were discussed above. In 1 Cor 16:1-4, Paul provides advice on
fundraising procedures -. advice that reflects his confidence that the Corinthians will continue
their support of the fund. Moreover, in 1 Cor 16:2, Paul recommends that each member of the
Corinthian congregation (émoroq budw) donate to the fund whatever he or she is able to offer, an

29
David J. Downs, “Is God Paul’s Patron? The Economy of Patronage in Pauline Theolgy” in Engaging Economics:
New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception edited by Bruce W. Longenecker & Kelly D. Liebengood
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 151.
9
indication that support of the collection was not merely the responsibility of the few (relatively)
wealthy members of the community like an Erastus or a Gaius.

By the time Paul writes 2 Cor 8:1-9:15, however, much water has passed under the bridge: Paul
and the church have experienced a serious conflict, probably due in part to disputes about
pecuniary matters -although their relationship has been restored by Paul’s “letter of tears” and
the Corinthians’ favorable response to it (see 2 Cor 1:12-2:11; 72-16). In 2 Corinthians 8-9, then,
Paul undertakes a cautious encouragement for the Corinthians to adopt a reoriented theological
conception of the collection and so resume their participation in the offering. In this section, Paul
adopts a startling variety of rhetorical appeals to accomplish this aim:

(1) he emphasizes the example of the Macedonians, who have generously contributed to the
fund, in spite of their deep poverty (821-6);

(2) he highlights the paradigmatic xépic (grace) of the Lord Jesus Christ, “who became poor for
your sakes, although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (8:9);

(3) he draws upon the principle of ioérnc (equality), not merely a philosophical concept for Paul
but a notion deeply rooted in the narrative of God’s gracious provision of manna to the Israelites
in the wilderness (8:13-15);

(4) he suggests that both he and the Corinthians will be shamed if believers come from
Macedonia to Corinth and find the undertaking unfinished (911-5);

(5) he paints an agricultural metaphor to suggest that giving to the collection is like sowing seed,
a metaphor that emphasizes the generative activity of God in the act of human benelicence (9:6-
10); and,

(6) he punctuates this appeal by indicating that true generosity results i thanksgiving and praise
to God, the one from whom all benefactions

tjmately originate (9:11-15).

10
Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, 21 number of linguistic expressions in faul’s rhetoric
depict the collection in cultic terms (1 Cor 1621-2; 2 Cor 8:6; 11-12; 9:12; Rom 15:16, 27-28). In
metaphorically framing the activity of col’ lecting money for the poor among the saints as an act
of cultic worship, Paul underscores the point that the fulfillment of mutual obligations within the
Christian community results in praise, not to human donors, as the domi’ nant ideology of
patronage or euergetism would have suggested, but to God, the one from whom all benefactions
come. As Paul outlines in 2 Cor 9:14a15, even the very human action of raising money for those
in material need originates in f] xdplc tot) 92013 (the grace of God) and will eventuate in xdplc
1(1) 68(1) (thanks to God) for his inexpressible gift.56 Paul’s strategy in orgav nizing the
collection for Jerusalem, therefore, also bears witness to the apos~ tle’s desire to minimize
patronal relationships among the various members of his churches and even between the
congregations of his mission and the Christ-believing community in Jerusalem.

We might wonder, then, whether the Paul who appears to extend much effort to minimize
patronage among his readers would have found patronage to be an appropriate model for divine-
human relations. Paul’s explicit discussions of pecuniary matters in the Corinthian
correspondence unfailingly oppose the institution of exploitative and agonistic economic
practices within the community of “those who are being saved” (1 Cor 1:18). Paul’s ap~ peals
are grounded in a diverse array of theological warrants. Yet we should not abstract the explicit
warrants that Paul offers in his considerations of the financial practices of his communities from
the larger contexts in which these statements are embedded.

Riches and Poverty Photo

Riches

The lack of attention in the Pauline letters to the rich and to the appropriate use of riches is
remarkable. The evidence of Acts (e.g., Acts 16:14; 17:12; 18:7-8) and analysis of names
mentioned in Paul's correspondence (e.g., Rom 16:1-23) suggest that there were many early
converts who were well-to-do. Yet Paul scarcely touches on the subject of riches, and the only
extended treatment is 1 Timothy 6:610, 17-19. Admittedly, the use of wealth falls somewhat
outside the scope of the interpersonal and intercommunity issues most characteristic of Pauline
ethics.* It is pos- sible that Paul’s own “freedom from worldly concems" (1 Cor 7:28-35; 8:1-
27), his "contentment in any state" (Phil 4:10-13), rendered him less aware of the issue for
others. Conversely, he may have been so sensitive to the issue that he gave instructions only
verbally to in- dividuals. Still, the fact that Paul was an itinerant who presumably lived with
minimal possessions and yet re- quired nothing like this for others, suggests that his expectafions
for rank-and-file believers were modest by comparison.

Spiritualization of the Riches. The character of God in his bestowal of salvation is described in
terms of his “riches,” especially in Romans (Rom 2:4; 9:23; 10:12; 11:33) and Ephesians (Eph
1:7, 18; 2:4, 7; 3:8, 16; cf. Phil 4:19; Col 1:27). Accordingly, God “enriches” the saints (Rom
11:12; 1 Cor 1:5; 2 Cor 6:10; 9:11; Col 2:2; 3:16; Tit 3:6). In 2 Corinthians 8:9 Christ is said to
11
have moved from wealth to poverty in order to make others rich spiritually. Paul uses a similar
line of argument in 2 Corinthian; 6:10, contending that his own (economic) poverty leads to the
(spiritual) wealth of the Corinthians.

1.2. Economic Level of Paul’s Constituency: l Corinthians 1:26 indicates that “not many”
Corinthians were in positions of power or nobility, but recent studies have shown that it is a
mistake to take this as an indicator of a low economic level in the Pauline churches. “Not many"
allows for significant exceptions (cf. Acts 18:7- 8; Rom 16:23), and people could possess riches
without prestige or rank. Indeed, Paul criticizes members of the church for social pretensions (1
Cor 11:19) and social prejudice (1 Cor 11:17-22), and his extended appeal for financial aid (see
Financial Support) assumes their abil- ity to support the cause of helping the Jerusalem poor (2
Cor 8-9; esp. 2 Cor 8:13-15). The emerging consen- sus is that Pauline churches represented a
fair cross- section of urban society: few extremes on either end of the socioeconomic scale, and a
preponderance of artisans and traders at various levels of income. Those with money but without
other means of status may have been attracted to Christianity in part as a status- enhancing
mechanism within the local community (see Social Setting). e 1-3. Raponsible Use of Riches.
The personal econottiifi ethic of the Pauline corpus reflects standard Jewish piety of the period.
This includes wamings against greed (1 Cor 5:11; 1 Tim 3:8; Tit 1:7), avoidance o'f~ poverty by
industiy (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 4=11-12: ¢f; 2_Thess 3:6-12), priority in giving to one's own
houiié-'* hold (Gal 6110; 1 Tim 5:8; cf. Acts 11:27-30): and libs?!‘ ality toward others (Rom
12:8, 13; 1 Cor 16:2; 2~C0T8i2$__ Eph 4:28). The focus of liberality for Paul is the‘ tion for the
saints (see Collection for the Saints), appears to have taken the place of the Jewish Ti tax as a
Pauline expression of solidarity widiitllbi salem* church (Rom 15:25-29; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2

12