ids

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision

on poverty: The Jerusalem collection
Jeremy Punt
Faculty of Theology
University of Fort Hare
ALICE
E-mail: pjeremy@ufh.ac.za

Abstract

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem

collection
Set against a broader discussion of Paul’s economical perspectives,
the emphasis of this article is on some of his directives concerning
poverty. As much as the Pauline letters cannot be seen as a text-
book for economic theory and practice, they offer no ready-made
answers for addressing poverty, ancient or modern, either. It is in
particular when addressing poverty – which he never did in abstract -
that Paul’s considerable concern for the socio-economical situation
of the communities he addressed becomes apparent. For Paul,
evidently, poverty is not disconnected from other matters in the
community such as righteousness and fellowship. These matters can
easily be observed in Paul’s motivation of the collection for the
churches in Jerusalem. Some implications of Paul’s treatment of
poverty for theological thinking in this regard, are briefly explored.

1. Introduction
Christians often use the Bible when reflecting on issues such as poverty,
particularly when its spread in our own country and around us on the
African continent is so rampant and its influence so farreaching. It soon
emerges when reading Paul on poverty that, on the one hand his
perspectives on what we today would call the economy, should be
understood according to the sensibilities of first-century economic views.
But, on the other hand and as was also stressed in an earlier journal
article (Punt, 2000:1-21) regarding some of Paul’s views on work, his
exhortations concerning economics were part of a larger complex of
ideas. Without suggesting that Paul’s emphasis on the collection for the

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 469

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

Jerusalem church presents the full account of his concern about poverty
in his letters, this article proceeds from the vantage point of Pauline per-
spectives and directives on the material want of the Jerusalem
community, claiming that Paul’s references to the collection should not
be spiritualised. The primary purpose of the collection was clearly the
attempt to relieve what appeared to have been a situation of desperate
poverty in the Jerusalem church.
This is not in the first place an exegetical study, although it includes
exegetical considerations. Proceeding from a cultural-critical interest,
interacting with socio-historical evaluations of the first century economic
context, reviewing various scholarly opinions and using a literary-critical
reading of the Pauline letters, no easy application of Paul’s sentiments to
the evaluation of poverty today is suggested. Indeed, using the Pauline
letters to construct a coherent and systematic response to contemporary
economics, in one sense certainly goes beyond the pastoral and
ecclesiocentric purpose of his letters, temporally and substantially.
However, in another sense, such (post)modern construction of Paul’s
economic vision lies in the extention of that purpose. And after all,
designating the formulation of such sentiments for today’s economics,
“Paul’s vision” suggests an interactive relationship between the
economic notions expressed in his letters, and today’s world and its
economic setting. In other words, this is not an attempt at ventriloquising
Paul. The interaction between the ancient economy, Paul’s concerns and
our modern circumstances is exploited in this article, as an introductory
investigation into the way in which Pauline sentiments might inform our
thinking on the by now endemic poverty of large parts of Africa and the
rest of the world.

2. Paul on poverty: The collection1

I suspect that the continual remembrance of the poor for which Paul
expressed such resolve was not incidental to his theology, and that
the scars he bore on his body were the measure of his commitment
to that vision (Elliott, 1994:90).

1 The heading does not intend to suggest that the collection was only about alleviating
poverty, as a form of Christian charity only. McKnight (1993:144) argues in his concise
but detailed discussion on the collection that “[i]nvolved in Paul’s collection were the
credibility of his apostolic mission and the legitimacy of the Gentile mission (Gal. 2:1-
10), the recognition of the priority of Israel in God’s redemptive plan (Rom. 15:27), the
goodwill of Christian communities (2 Cor. 8-9), as well as the need for individual
Christians to trust in God to supply their needs if they were to give generously (2 Cor.
9)”. These aspects might also have become Paul’s task as part of an apostolic work
arrangement (Everts, 1993:297). As explained below, different theological
interpretations of the collection were likely to follow during the development of the
Pauline ministry and beyond.

470 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

Paul’s repeated and (once) well-argued insistence on the need for

churches to contribute to the alleviation of the poverty of the Jerusalem
community stands in stark contrast to his disavowal of personal support.
His emphasis on the collection confirms his own commitment to (as
stressed by Elliott) and the early church’s concern with care for the
marginalised in the community: widows and orphans, the poor, the sick
and elderly, and so on. Indeed, it can be argued that Paul’s insistence
that those who could, should work, enabled not only their own in-
dependence but also the potency to provide relieve to those who were in
need (so e.g. Jones, 1984:224-225). Paul’s preoccupation with a
“collection”2 for the church in Jerusalem, which is not limited to two
chapters in his second letter to the Corinthian church,3 requires further
investigation.4

2 It is variously called “fellowship” (\, Rom. 15:26); “service” (\, Rom.

15:25, 31; 2 Corinthians 8:20; 9:1, 12, 13); “gift” (Vl, 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:6, 7, 19);
“generous gift” (Û\, 2 Cor. 9:5); “collection” (\, 1 Cor. 16:1); “liberal gift”
(•`l, 2 Cor. 8:20); “service that you perform” (º\-l\l –
2 Cor. 9:12) by Paul. In 2 Corinthians 8:4 three different terms are used in the same
sentence to refer to it: gift or privilege (Vl), sharing (\), and service
(\) (cf. Dahl, 1977:37-38; McKnight, 1993:143). Cf. Georgi (1992:196-197 n 1).

For Paul’s personal sacrifice concerning the gathering and delivering the collection to
Jerusalem, cf. e.g. Nürnberger (1978:164).

3 Cf. also Romans 15:26-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; Galathians 2:10; and the allusion to it
(cf. McKnight, 1993:143) in Galathians 6:6-10. It should be noted that although the
collection is mentioned in Galathians and Romans, Paul requests support only in the
Corinthian letters, especially in 2 Corinthians 8-9. Trobisch (1994:55-96; especially
p. 87) provocatively argues that Paul selected and edited Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians
and Galatians for publication or circulation for the specific purpose of the Jerusalem
collection.

Although very little evidence for the collection can be gained directly from Acts (except
maybe 24:17), McKnight is at pains to point out that Paul’s concern for the collection is
borne out by the Acts-narrative (1993:143-144). Everts (1993:297) is less optimistic
about Acts providing supportive material regarding the collection. Although in Acts
11:29-30 mention is made of concern expressed and action taken to relieve the need of
the Judean Christians, Acts 15 (Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem apostles) and Acts
21 (probably about Paul’s trip to Jerusalem) fail to mention the collection. Cf. also
Georgi (1992:58-61) on the interconnectedness of Paul’s own interests and personal
fate with the collection, and the criticism this apparently evoked in the Corinthian
church.

4 Cf. Georgi (1992:viii-ix) who finds the discrepancy between the importance of the
collection in Paul’s letters and the absence of its study by scholars alarming. His 1992-
book – a translation with “major differences” (Georgi, 1992:x) compared to the earlier
German version of 1965 – is apart from Nickle’s (1966) and Betz’s (1985) studies the
only comprehensive study on the collection. References to earlier studies by Holl,
Munck, Franklin on the collection can be found in Georgi’s bibliography.

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 471

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

The most elaborate treatment of the collection is, however, found in

2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Paul’s insistence on the collection for the saints in
Jerusalem goes beyond that particular matter to include general
concerns such as “the need for generosity (2 Cor. 8:12; 9:5-11), the goal
of equality (2 Cor. 8:13-15) and the need for careful administration of the
funds (2 Cor. 8:18-21)” (McKnight, 1993:143).

Indeed, as Georgi (1992:82) summarises, “[t]he principles of representa-

tion, vicarious action, reciprocity, and shared destiny are tightly connec-
ted to the concept of a collection for Jerusalem and its conveyance”.

Paul insisted upon some sort of internal auditing team5 to accompany

him with the collected money: “Paul is exceptionally careful to have
others supervise the collection and do what is honorable by human
standards” (Everts, 1993:298; cf. Dahl, 1977:32 on 2 Cor. 8:20-21). In
2 Corinthians 8:18-22 mention is made of two (anonymous) people who
were to accompany the collected money which had to be delivered to
Jerusalem. “Swindle and embezzlement were not the only possible
issues; Paul might also be compared to a money-greedy manipulator, or
even simply derided for travelling around with money instead of the
gospel” (Georgi, 1992:74).

These two persons were probably not, however, primarily appointed to

manage the collection or its distribution. Their task was most likely
apologetic: to, as competent preachers and theologians, explain to the
various communities the purpose and reasoning behind Paul’s collection
tour and the presence of the money (Georgi, 1992:74).

2.1 Spiritualising wealth?

We find no such judgements [harsh pronouncements about wealth
and its dangers] in Paul’s letters. ... Paul neither condemns wealth
nor glorifies its renunciation (Dahl, 1977:22-23).

As Paul never treated wealth and poverty as abstract topics in his letters
as pointed out by Dahl, the temptation to spiritualise his references to
these matters6 is typically balanced by the argument that Paul was
relatively unconcerned with riches and even less with poverty.7 So, in the

5 This was in line with the traditional prescriptions, too, as found in Deuteronomy 19:15
(cf. Nürnberger, 1978:165).

6 Such spiritualising of references to wealth and poverty is also found in treatments of

the Gospels (cf. Birch & Rasmussen, 1978:9).

7 Reasons offered for Paul’s perceived disinterestedness would typically range from his
eschatological-apocalyptic concern (e.g. Schrage, 1988:231; however, cf. the warnings
of e.g. Georgi, 1991:102, Nürnberger, 1978:170), through the argument that early
472 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489
 Jeremy Punt

words of Schrage (1988:232), we learn that “[o]f course, alleviation of

social problems is not the real purpose, but the communion of the body
of Christ has an ethical and social dimension”. Schmidt argues that Paul
consistently spiritualises riches and wealth by using these and related
terms to describe Christian spirituality and events related to it. Schmidt
(1993:826) posits that very few people in the first century were poor in
terms of no means of a livelihood, and that for Paul “poverty per se” was
“not a concern”. The poor in Jerusalem might refer to a situation of
“economic deprivation”, but then again it might be nothing more than “a
self-designation of the Jews” who are “longing for the spiritual riches of
salvation” (emphasis in original).

Suffice it to mention that it would probably be more accurate to note how

integrally Paul sees financial matters to be related to spirituality.8 In this
regard Philippians 4:10-20 is especially noteworthy. Georgi (1992:64, 66)
notes how Paul applies the “highly spiritualized language of cultic piety”
to a monetary gift. He argues that this passage could be seen as the
“exegetical model”9 for interpreting Paul’s statements about the
collection.

Paul never glorifies poverty or the lack of sufficient material resources.

As much as Paul’s preference for sexual celibacy was driven by

Christians were structurally prisoners of the system(s) of the time, to claims that Paul’s
attention were to (individual) spiritual matters. Scholars often almost subconsciously
propagate Paul’s illusory silence on social matters; e.g., cf. Sider (1977:182) “Why
have missionaries so often taught Romans but not Amos to new converts in poor
lands”. But cf. Elliott’s (1994:93-230; 1997:371-89) rereadings of Paul, and Romans in
particular (cf. also Georgi, 1991:81-104).

8 Cf. also e.g. Haan (1988:70) who stresses that Paul did not accept their assistance for
“pure economic” considerations. “This economic traffic does not exist for its own sake.
It is a spiritual experience. ... The support of Paul was in fact a pleasing sacrifice to
God himself”. And Nürnberger (1978:166) refers to the “investment of love in terms of
money”: eliminating or lessening the material want of others compels them to extend
gratitude towards God, for the gift but also for the divine inducement of the gift. Georgi
(1992:104) stresses that “Paul sees the collection for Jerusalem in a worldwide
perspective ... a worldwide worship service, set in motion by God himself and
proceeding in his own honor, for the increase of his power of grace” – in fact, Paul
succeeds in historising the “mystical theme of spiritual worship” (Georgi, 1992:105).
Georgi (1992:109) also notes that the collection “constitutes the tangible expression” of
God’s new creation, “the eschatological people of God” who are “covenanted with Jews
and Gentiles alike”. Indeed, “Paul’s reflections on money are intimately related to
central theological issues and interwoven with his life and the lives of his
congregations” (Georgi, 1992:141).

9 Georgi (1992:66-67) argues that the note of thanks to the Philippians and the texts
about the collection were written more or less at the same time, and that the issues
discussed are “more or less the same”. There are also similarities in “style,
terminology, content and religio-historical detail” between these texts.

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 473

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

usefulness to the benefit of extending God’s reign on earth (1 Cor. 7:32

but cf. the rest of 1 Cor. 7 and especially 1 Cor. 7:2-6), his often self-
induced deprivation10 was perceived to be in direct service to the gospel
(Phil. 4:11). Paul regarded the command to become poor for the sake of
others as “the powerful initiative of free love which is willing to go the
whole way” (Nürnberger, 1978:166).

2.2 On the purpose of the collection

As the sowing/reaping metaphor shows, Paul regards giving as a
theologically significant activity (Everts, 1993:299).

One of the most important observations about the collection is to note its
interconnectedness to and centrality within Pauline thought and practice:
“… a close relationship between the collection, its establishment, and its
organizational structure, on the one hand, with Paul’s missionary thinking
and strategy on the other” (Georgi, 1992:19, with reference to Munck).

The collection therefore served the purpose of legitimising Paul’s mission

to the Gentiles as illustrated by Galathians 2:10, while it established a
vital link to the Jerusalem church and aimed at the unity of and equality
within the body of Christ.

Everts (1993:297) mentions two possible antecedents for the collection –

temple tax and a votive offering – adding that “Paul gets many of his
ideas about money from Judaism and applies those ideas in the
churches he serves”. Paul saw the collection as his “sacrificial offering to
the Jerusalem community” (McKnight, 1993:143, referring to Hill). Georgi
(1992:148-149) argues how and why Paul is careful not to describe the
collection in terms which might be linked to “tax”, “pilgrimage” and “debt
and obligation”.11

10 However, not all of Paul’s self-sacrifice can be ascribed to “purely altruistic motives”, in
view of the emphasis in his letters on his “honour” or “fame”, “reward” or “benefit”,
“glory” or “crown” (Nürnberger, 1978:169-170). Nürnberger qualifies this argument, viz
that “the reward he receives and hopes for is identical with the success of the Gospel
he preaches”. This means that, ultimately, Paul’s personal agenda is left out of
consideration all together.

11 One should be careful not to make too much of the perceived “reticence” of Paul in
employing “the language of the market economy”. This is apparently evidenced by
some in Paul’s avoiding any reference to the collection money as “tax”, to debts and
obligations (except for Rom. 15:27), and a “negative attitude toward the concept of self
and toward the adoration of the private, privatization, and private property”, although he
“knew the vocabulary of business language” (Georgi, 1992:148-149). Cf. Pathrapankal
(1995:1005).

474 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

Before considering the broader setting of the collection for Jerusalem, it

might be helpful to note a number of possible reasons for Paul’s
insistence on and the importance he attributed to the collection:

2.2.1 Helping the poor

Concern for the poor was a dominant element in both Jewish and
Christian piety (Everts, 1993:299).

A very common understanding of the collection sees it as Christian

charity, a typical way to address poverty in the early church. “It is also an
act of social welfare in an economic emergency” (Schrage, 1988:231).
This ties in with Paul’s insistence on showing compassion (Rom. 12:13;
1 Cor. 13; 2 Cor. 5:14; Gal. 5:6, 14; 6:10), which should be seen in the
broader context of Jewish insistence on deeds of mercy (e.g. Ex. 23:11,
Deut. 14:28-29; 24:19-22), Jesus’ teachings (e.g. Mat. 6:2-4; 11:2-6; Luk.
6:20-21), and the earliest church’s community life (e.g. Ac. 2:43-47; 4:32-
37; 6:1-7). The call for compassion is representative of the love of God,
as found by the Gentiles in Christ (2 Cor. 8:8-9, 19; 9:12-15). Poverty will
be alleviated in the church by creating “equality”12 (2 Cor. 8:13-14)
(McKnight, 1993:145).

Paul’s argument is that generous giving is “a sign of grace (charis) and a

ministry (diakonia) of the church” (Everts, 1993:299). Contributions to the
collection will demonstrate the genuine love of the Corinthian Christians;
in short, they will be imitating the love of Christ (2 Cor. 8:1-15).

2.2.2 Uniting the church

Going beyond concern for the poor, Paul’s motives with the collection
included his emphasis on unity within the church, attempting to unite the
Gentile Christians in Diaspora and Jewish Christians in Judea. In line
with the argument in Romans 9-11, Paul’s insistence on unity concerned
the “singularity of the gospel, the organic unity of the church, and the
temporal priority of the Jewish people in God’s redemptive plan”. The
exhortation to give voluntarily (1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:3, 8, 11-12; 9:1-5)
and generously (2 Cor. 8:2-4; 9:6-15) will ensure that the spiritual debt to

12 Georgi (1992:85,89) notes that Æ`l (equity or equality) was closely linked to –
finding its causative basis in – b (righteousness) in both Greek and
Hellenistic thought. ‘3`0loccurs twice in 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 and nowhere else in
the Pauline documents (Georgi, 1992:84-85).

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 475

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

the “mother church” (Ac. 24:17) is acknowledged (Rom. 15:27)13

(McKnight, 1993:145; cf. Georgi, 1992:19, referring to Franklin).

Similarly, Dahl (1977:31) argues that the alleviating of economic need in

the Jerusalem community was not “the element which weighed most
heavily on Paul”, but that “the gift proves the reality of the love which
binds all Christians together”14. Moreover, the gift was in response to the
apostolic agreement which required Paul to “remember15 the poor” (Gal.
2:10).

When Paul refers to the collection as Vl (1 Cor. 16:3),16 the notion of
reciprocity is once again present. A gift is bestowed but with a sense of
obligation towards the one receiving it, and in order to advance close
association with a view towards further cooperation and mutual benefits
in future (Georgi, 1992:54).

2.2.3 Substitute for Jewish initiation rites

The collection can be interpreted as the Gentile equivalent, and in lieu, of
Jewish sacrifices and circumcision in particular. The monetary and other
gifts to the Jerusalem community indicated Gentile association with and
fidelity to the covenant with Abraham (e.g. Sir. 29:12, 40:24; Tob. 4:10-
11, 12:9, 14:11; Ac. 10:2, 35). The collected money and gifts would
acknowledge Gentile commitment to Israel and the Law, and

13 As McKnight (1993) suggests, the collection may have been perceived by Paul as the
crowning achievement of the first (and eventually, the only completed) part of his
ministry (the “fruit” and “seal” of that effort, Rom. 15:23-24, 28). The Jerusalem
community might, however, have seen the collection as the obligation of the Gentile
communities as “expression of their dependence upon the founding churches”
(McKnight, 1993:145), or at least within a reciprocal relationship (cf. Everts, 1993:299).

14 And this unity went beyond geographical distance and personal unfamiliarity, ethnic
and cultural barriers between Jewish and “Gentile” Christians, tensions regarding the
status of apostles (e.g. Gal. 2:6; 1 Cor. 2; 2 Cor. 11), sincere theological disagreements
and conflicts (e.g. Gal. 2:11 ff; 2 Cor. 10 ff; Phil. 3) (cf. Nürnberger, 1978:163).

15 Cf. Pathrapankal (1995:1005-1009) on b “remembering” throughout the

Bible is more than “a psychological exercise of calling to memory something of the
past, but an act of mind and will, out of which a corresponding action follows”.

16 The importance of seeing the collection as Vl is intensified when it is realised that
the Macedonian churches were probably equally adversely affected by poverty (2 Cor.
8:2) – “Vl becomes the very leitmotif” of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Georgi, 1992:72; cf.
82-83). Participation was seen by Paul as part of the charismata, all of which he took
as being “by nature active” (Georgi, 1992:82). Georgi also refers to the connection
between Vl and Û\ (“the confirmation or the establishment of a communal
relationship, not just ... a prayerful wish or thanks”).

476 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

acknowledge Jewish salvation-historical privilege17 (McKnight, 1993:145-

146).

The collection has also been interpreted in the past as the obligation of
Gentiles which corresponded to the traditional Jewish temple tax18 (Holl,
referred to in Georgi, 1992:17).

2.2.4 Eschatological inspiration

Paul seems to suggest in Romans 11:11-24 that the conversion of the
Jews to the Messiah, Jesus Christ, was dependent on the salvation of
the Gentiles. With the Gentile collection brought to Jerusalem the
prophecy (Is. 2:2-4; 60:6-7, 11) will be fulfilled, resulting in an
“eschatological provocation” aimed at stimulating Jewish belief in Jesus
Christ as the Messiah (cf. 2 Cor. 9:10, alluding to Is. 55:10; 2 Cor. 9:11-
12) (McKnight, 1993:146; cf. Georgi, 1992:18, quoting Hall). The biggest
problem with this explanation is that Paul himself never explicitly
mentions this as the reason for the collection (cf. Everts, 1993:299).

Georgi takes the eschatological argument in a different direction when he

suggests that the notion of the “poor” in Jerusalem underwent some
development in the Pauline letters. Early on the “poor” is an eschato-
logical concept referring to God’s chosen if oppressed and marginalised
people, “the future co-rulers of God”. However, by the time he wrote
Romans, the “poor” has become a “sociological designation” and the
self-understanding of the Jerusalem believers is no longer taken into
account. The church’s importance is now redefined, in terms of “its
relationship to the worldwide missionary activity and the worldwide
church”.19 And in this way, the collection becomes both the confirmation
and promise of the growing community of Christ (Georgi, 1992:33-34,
114-121).

An oft heard suggestion is that possessions and money were in Paul’s

eyes of “little concern” and “trivial” because of the nearness of the new
age and because material concerns belong to the old age (e.g. Dahl,
1977:24). However, although Paul expected the imminent and

17 Although, of course, the Gentiles have become “the forerunners of liberated humanity,
the witnesses to the Jews to the presence of God’s eschatological salvation – not the
other way round” (Georgi, 1992:101).

18 Although Georgi (1992:53) cautions that \in 1 Corinthians 16:3 does not refer to
“a tax” as Paul did not have a permanent injunction in mind.

19 For the provocative nature of this step, and Paul’s awareness of the provocation, cf.
Georgi (1992:117-120).

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 477

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

apocalyptic return of Christ, “worldly” matters never ceased in impor-

tance for him but were recast in service to the dawning new age.
Economic matters were not “trivial” for Paul, but in fact like all other
matters, contingent upon and therefore relative to the coming reign of
God (cf. Dahl, 1977:25).20 And, it should be added, his eschatological
expectation rather served to intensify than trivialise Paul’s social
concerns (cf. Georgi, 1992:102).21

To summarise: It is not uncommon to argue that Paul’s purpose with the

collection might have included various elements, to varying degrees, of
the above-mentioned possibilities. A more integrated explanation of
Paul’s purpose with the collection will allow one to perceive the inter-
connectedness of the “eschatological status of the Jerusalem congrega-
tion” and the need “to assist that congregation both morally and
economically”, grounded in the belief of the unity of Christ’s body and in
the hope of his impending return (Georgi, 1992:42). As the collection
gained a momentum of its own,22 it moved away from its “original
contractual purpose” to a “paradigm for ecumenical communal exchange
in the form of a financial communication”, “a demonstration of the
interplay of divine gift and human gratitude” (Georgi, 1992:152).

2.3 Result of the collection

Paul’s own letters give no indication whether the collection was ever
presented to the Jerusalem church or its effects. It is possible to infer
from the account in Acts 21:17-26 that the collection was well received.
Scholars have argued, to the contrary, that the collection failed to live up
to Paul’s expectations: “The saints remained poor, the act of charity
notwithstanding; the tension between Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians continued; and the conversion of Israel never took place”
(McKnight, 1993:146).

20 Paul clearly did not subscribe to the radical denunciation of temporal economy as
found in Apocalypticism (where state power and wealth, i. e. economic and political
strength, meant corruption and sinfulness) or Gnosticism, nor to the appreciation of
“performance- and market-oriented society” as found in Jewish missionary wisdom
(Georgi, 1992:144, 214 n 8-9).

21 Contra Hengel (1974:39-41) who argues for the “eschatological relativization of

property” in Paul.

22 In 2 Corinthians 8 Paul is to be found describing the collection as if he was only a

witness to the event. It appears that at some stage in the process of gathering the
collection, it developed its own momentum. “This is why Paul suddenly felt deprived of
his founder rights and transformed into a mere spectator”. All the same, this very
momentum generated by the collection-efforts was what guaranteed its success in
Paul’s opinion (Georgi, 1992:72, 105).

478 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

Employing an argument of silence, McKnight is optimistic that the

collection “would have” accomplished Paul’s goals of, at least, alleviating
some of the poverty of the Jerusalem church and mollifying the tension
between Gentile and Jewish (Jerusalem) Christians to some extent.23

3. Righteousness, fellowship and sharing

In the collection, a cycle of grace occurs in which money is the
expression and means of a process that moves human hearts and
draws people together (Georgi, 1992:152).

Evaluating Pauline statements on poverty and its alleviation as they

emerge from his letters and the references to the collection in particular,
shows that more than (Christian) charity is involved. It is interesting to
note that Paul used \, often referring to fellowship, to express
“generosity or liberality” in financial terms (2 Cor. 8:4; Phil. 1:5; Philem.
6).
The ideas of the circulation of money and of economic growth have
been exchanged for the circulation and growth of the grace of God
among people, even the growth of God self for the benefit of all
humans (Georgi, 1992:153-154).

At times a “concrete form of this generosity” is signified by both noun and

verb, in the sense of a “gift”, “contribution” (e.g. Phil. 4:15; Gal. 6:6) or
the Jerusalem collection (cf. Rom. 15:26) (O’Brien, 1993:294).
In Paul’s understanding of money the spiritual and material aspects
of giving and receiving are closely related ... Requests for money are
rooted in partnership in the gospel; one gives out of thankfulness for
the spiritual benefits received (Everts, 1993:299).

Similarly, scholars such as Dahl (1977:30-31) and Georgi (1992:82-83)

point out that generosity was listed by Paul as a “spiritual gift”. Paul
emphasised the “giver’s attitude” – the joy and the love expressed in the
gifts – and not so much the financial aspects involved in generosity.

23 Cf. Georgi’s (1992:125-126) argument that the collection, ironically, ended up paying
for cultic services with Paul paying for the expenses to have the four destitute
Nazarites released. Still, this both allowed for the Jerusalem church to accept the
collected money, and to defend Paul against charges of enmity towards the Torah.

Tragically, if Georgi’s reading of the events in Jerusalem is accurate, this eventually led
to Paul’s imprisonment through a misunderstandng that Paul desecrated the temple –
punishable by death penalty under Jewish law – by bringing an uncircumcised Gentile,
Trophimus, into the temple. Paul went to Rome, and probably met his death there
(Georgi, 1992:126-127). Pathrapankal (1995:1013) laments that the “relief fund” failed
to impress the Jerusalem church and its leadership.

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 479

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

“Money becomes more than just money within the Christian church; it
attains an almost sacramental significance: ‘A visible sign of an invisible
grace’”.24

Paul conflates the notion of the righteousness of God with the idea that
true human compassion and generosity finds its origin in God25 (2 Cor.
9:5-15). “God’s righteousness is the origin of human righteousness, but
the latter is allowed to reflect and represent the former in full”. With
resourceful use of Psalm 111 the “righteous one” to whom Paul refers is
not God, but the pious person, merciful and compassionate. Such
righteousness26 is therefore not in the first place a “quality”, “virtue” or
“correct moral behaviour” of a human being, but could also refer to
someone being “integrated into the sphere of divine righteousness” and
therefore acting towards the community in accordance with God’s
covenant with humanity. Righteousness forms the point of departure for
the restructuring of “true community as a model society”, which becomes
at the same time a more “reasonable” society – and, the initiating model
society being the church (Georgi, 1992:98-99; 158-161).
This justifying grace creates wise and reasonable, in a word good,
praxis, in which personhood and the identity of persons is formed
through relatedness and concern for others. ... It is giving instead of
gaining, thanks instead of interest, confidence instead of credit, trust
instead of security, community instead of market, spiritual worship
instead of temple cult, charisma instead of property. This praxis
avoids the power that grows out of fear and that leads to exploitation
and violence. Instead, this praxis affirms the power of weakness and
poverty because such power allows for authentic engagement,
reliable yield, and true growth. ... This praxis will instigate and

24 Cf. Verhey (1984:119): “[I]t is also the case that generosity and hospitality are ‘nearly
sacramental’ themselves (Phil. 4:18), a material sign of a spiritual grace”. Cf. Dahl
(1977:35).

25 In the words of Nürnberger (1978:164): “It is remarkable that Paul derives his
exhortation to give freely from the very centre of his Gospel: Christ did not give this or
that; he gave himself!”. As much as “creation and created life originate in and are
maintained by grace”, “[t]he sharing initiated by the collection ‘becomes the
manifestation of the body of Christ’” (Georgi, 1992:153-154).

26 It is important to note that whereas in the Hellenistic world equity and equality were
synonyms for righteousness and justice as the “basis and moving force of society”, for
Paul righteousness is the basis of equality (Georgi, 1992:154-155). Cf. Sider
(1977:101-104) on the right to property being explicitly and implicitly affirmed in
Scripture, although it is not an absolute right; Georgi (1992:160-161) claims that the
concepts of “private property and private ownership find in Paul no place at all”. For the
importance of “righteousness” and related terms for economics in the Hellenistic world,
cf. Xenophon’s Oeconomicus (Georgi, 1992:145).

480 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

invigorate truly humane, namely relational, ethical, and consciously

political elements in the economy, and will make them transparent
(Georgi, 1992:160).

The Pauline bottom line is: Human acts of compassion and generosity
are not separate or independent from divine action.

With the collection Paul is clearly addressing economic issues on more

than the individual level. Although it can hardly be claimed that Paul
introduced an economic system characterised by justice, or an economic
system at all, his concerns reached beyond the confines of economic
justice to individuals.
The idea that in Christianity only the right attitude counts, while
structures do not matter, finds no support in the Bible! Paul is
emphatic that attitudes alone carry no weight and he presses for
formal institutionalised processes with concrete aims, and involving
particular agents and carriers (Nürnberger, 1978:164).

The importance of the community is underlined in Dahl’s comment

(1977:24) that “Paul never looks at an individual’s relationship to money
in isolation” as he factors in three “decisive” issues (“eschatology, the
church and his own situation as apostle”).27 “Increase of wealth for him
[Paul] needs to be common wealth. ... The money involved becomes a
social force, a gift from community to community. ... This sharing
becomes a manifestation of the body of Christ” (Georgi, 1992:153).28

Paul’s insistence on “equality” (Æ`l) within the community (church) is

a concept which, with its close relationship to righteousness (b
(cf. Van Wyk, 1978:212), comes to stand next to Vl.29 ’`l

27 Yet, Paul emphasised the importance of rational thought: appealing to reason he urges
the Corinthians on to show compassion and give generously (2 Cor. 9:5-7). “For
believers, freedom means liberation from self. True rationality and free decision-making
become possible only subsequent to this liberation” (Georgi, 1992:95, 97-98).

28 Paul’s premise was the biblical prohibition of interest (cf. Ex. 22:24, Lev. 25:36-37).

29 Nürnberger (1978:167) contends that Paul derives the idea of equality from the Old
Testament. Cf. also Verhey (1984:120); Gonzáles (1990:86) who notes that Paul’s
argument is corroborated by Exodus 16:18 (manna, the eschatological symbol, but also
illustrative of “equality, sharing, freedom from hoarding and dependence on God”); cf.
Haan (1988:61-65). In the Greco-Roman world equality was often frowned upon; cf.
Cicero who regarded it as a “terrible evil” (Schrage, 1988:231). Equality did not mean
that everyone has “exactly the same as everyone else”, nor did it imply communal
ownership of property and/or the means of production (not even in Ac. 2:44; 4:32).
Because poverty is not “static”, measures must be put in place to deal with poverty,
such as the Jubilee. God sees and treats all the children of Israel as equal, and Paul
reinterprets this idea “in terms of the self-giving love of Christ”. For the relationship
In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 481
Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

becomes a divine principle and is now the fountainhead of giving and

receiving. This implies that “the principles of performance and
achievement fall aside, and with them all comparing, measuring, and
judging” (Georgi, 1992:89; cf. :155).

’`l is for Paul a divine force which makes humans equal,30 from
“equity (as divine potency of efficaciousness) to equality (as human
experience, legal, social, and economic reality)” (Georgi, 1992:155,
summarising 2 Cor. 8:13-14). Paul’s emphasis is on the “all-
encompassing movement of grace”, through which righteousness and
equality becomes possible, which is always to be found in its divine
origin. “That means that poor Christians should not only be cared for
while they remain poor, but their poverty must be eradicated with the eye
on economic equality between Christians” (cf. Ac. 4:32,34-35) (Van Wyk,
1978:212).

But this movement extends beyond Christian communities: “Universal

poverty and universal redemption are presupposed by Paul. Global
equalization is in view”31 (Georgi, 1992:156).

Georgi contends that for Paul the crucial economic issue of the collection
was the “ability to respect the dignity and integrity of the poor, their gift
and witness to society”. The poor of Jerusalem are not regarded as
“social and economic debris” but representative of the “spiritual things”32
between b (and connotations of the economic well-being of the community) and
Vl, cf. Georgi (1992:151-152). Pathrapankal (1995:1005) sees Paul’s references to
the collection with terms such as Vl, \, and \ as an indication that
his concern with it was primarily “solidarity” with the poor.

30 And, of course, money was and still is the great equaliser (cf. Georgi, 1992:154-155).

31 Contrary to Schrage (1988:232): “Paul obviously did not espouse or undertake social
action for the benefit of unbelievers on the basis of the fundamentally unrestricted law
of love” (although Schrage admits that Paul treated the unconverted Onesimus
according to “the ethics and praxis of Christian solidarity” and that Paul’s appeal for
Onesimus’ freedom “has real consequences not only within the community but also in
the world”; Schrage, 1988:234). As much as “money connects with the future”
(Keynes), Paul’s aim with the collection is connected to the future. Starting out as an
attempt to assist the poor of Jerusalem as the “avant garde of God’s new age” in
(active) anticipation of this era, the collection became a more general eschatological
paradigm, inducing “tangible utopian dimensions and aspects” (Georgi, 1992:158-159).
Utopian scenarios have recently been much discussed – for a critique of orthodox
theology’s anti-utopian condemnation of liberation theology, cf. Hinkelammert
(1997:31).

32 “Paul’s argument about the exchange of the fleshly against the spiritual is taken from
the rules of religious competition, more precisely, from the rules of the religious market,
a rather important sector in the wider Hellenistic market economy. ... Paul gives the
poor ones higher market value” (Georgi, 1992:163-164).
482 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489
 Jeremy Punt

they represent, the “main gift of that church to the rest of the churches”
(Georgi, 1992:163-164). Coming perilously close to romanticising poverty
in Paul’s name by making poverty the cutting-edge of human life, Georgi
(1992:164) contends that the poor “point to poverty as the basis for
human and social existence”, that the poor serve to remind and
challenge others “who believe themselves to be removed from
poverty”.33 However, Georgi is convincing in claiming that according to
Paul “the call to invest in the poor ones represents the central, not the
peripheral, concern for the market society that wants to be truly
economical, a society that really desires to invest in the future”. Because,
the poor in biblical terms “are not the rear guard of the past but the avant
garde of the future” (Georgi, 1992:165).

Yet, there is no “communistic ideal in Paul’s letters, not even of a

voluntary consumers” communism as an expression of love. He does,
however, mention the ideal of “economic equality” (Dahl, 1977:30;
Hengel, 1974:35). Neither is another statement by Paul in 2 Corinthians
8:9 on Jesus putting his wealth aside and taking up poverty, to be
considered as a proof text for ascetism,34 requiring economic or other
material sacrifices. “Poor” and “rich” here refers more probably to “the
respective states of heavenly and earthly existence”, and the text refers
to “that event in which the heavenly dimension of life became human”. In
the end, Paul’s statement is a universal assertion about the salvation
wrought by God (Georgi, 1992:83).

“There is a pervading but quiet heroism which characterises Paul’s

attitude toward money; to use Paul’s words: ‘The love of Christ controls
us.’ (2 Cor. 5:14)” (Dahl, 1977:36). “[F]ar from being concerned simply to
see that property rights are kept inviolable, Paul maintains that such
institutions must take second place to the demands of the gospel and
love” (Schrage, 1988:235).

33 Georgi (1992:164-165) also refers to the “potential or gift” “that is in human not-having,
not-possessing”. However, he does qualify it by referring to the ability of the poor to
“make do”; that the poor points to the “redemptive engagement of Christ”; and, that the
poor “call up the not-yet of society”, challenging “the sterility of a rich society”.
Therefore, he argues, a community that reaches out to the “hopeless cases” is “clearly
the more risk conscious, the more courageous, imaginative, and inventive”.

34 Paul never advocates ascetism as he appreciates all that exists as the gift of God, and
which people ought to enjoy to the full. This freedom and its enjoyment should,
however, never lead to the injury of a fellow-Christian (Nürnberger, 1978:170). In the
later Pauline tradition the goodness of the creation is emphasised by affirming God as
creator of all; it follows that Û¥•`•Û\l `
(nothing is to be neglected if received with thanksgiving) (1 Tm. 4:4). “It is not because
food, clothes, and property are inherently evil that Christians today must lower their
standard of living. It is because others are starving” (Sider, 1977:113).

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 483

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

Georgi adds that money does not, from Paul’s point of view, create but “it
stimulates, facilitates, and sets in motion the process of thanksgiving”.
Such growth is “in the context of the return of divine grace”, “in the
context of shared righteousness, the mutual respect for equality and
integrity” (Georgi, 1992:161).35 Money and market are creations of the
community and should function as such: communal trust should back
financial credit. “[T]he community has to remain above the market, all the
more the international community above the international market.
Accordingly, money and market have to remain expressions of the
community’s basic right and its manifestation in communal laws”. This
entails the equality of all, whether creditor or debtor (Georgi, 1992:161-
162).

4. Concluding remarks
It is tragic yet unavoidable that Pobee’s (1993:397) characterisation of
African identity should include a reference to Africa’s bondage to “the
grip of a culture of poverty”. In view of this sad fact, however, “[i]f Biblical
hermeneutics fails to address the issue of poverty in Africa, can it be said
to be contextual?” (Magessa, 1997:33). Surely, to deal with poverty
which surrounds us in a theologically adequate way, more is required
than this brief foray into Pauline sentiments on poverty – but we have to
start somewhere.36 Paul’s comments regarding the collection provide a
launching pad for theological reflection on poverty that ultimately goes
beyond material altruism, however important that itself may turn out to be
in South Africa.

Paul certainly advocates active financial help to the poor, as charity.

However, such assistance should never become a “conscience
tranquilizer” (Johnson, 1989:26). In fact, charity should follow careful
consideration as “faithful stewardship requires care in selecting those
who are truly in need of charity” (North, 1974:221). Otherwise charity can
become the “instrument of sin”:

35 Money is never neutral, cold or indifferent. As intimate friend of the market, it easily
become a law to itself and develop a life of its own. On the other hand, money is more
than nominal value, buying and market power; it is also about social value and
standing, social acceptability, and subjective feeling of value (Georgi, 1992:161-162).

36 And it is an urgent task for theology; cf. Éla (1994:137) “While people wallow in misery,
we are centering our reflection and action on religious rites and customs!”; Hays
(1996:468): “[I]maginative obedience to God will require of us a sharing of possessions
far more radical than the church has ordinarily supposed”. Nürnberger (1994:41-58)
makes a number of useful remarks on the need to devise a sound economic vision for
SA, and the role the church can play in an economic restructuring process. Dickinson
(1983:127-147) sees “theological and ethical reflection” on these issues as one of the
ways in which the church shows solidarity with the poor.

484 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

The recipient is humiliated by his [sic] dependency. His spiritual

indebtedness to the donor is added to his material poverty and his
situation becomes worse than it was before. The donor derives great
satisfaction from his superior position. The moral benefits of his
deeds are added to his material wealth. Giving often leads to a
deepening gulf between unequals instead of really bridging the gap
(Nürnberger, 1978:168).

It is for this reason that Paul’s appeal for generous giving should be
matched to his understanding that equality of all in the community is the
aim.

Employing Pauline perspectives in deliberating on the current economic

woes of the world, is not a magic wand or “ten-easy-steps” to ensure an
equitable and just (global and local) economic system. Indeed, Paul did
not provide us with a blueprint for a new economic order, on how to
structurally adjust economic systems globally to eradicate poverty and
ensure equality.37 However, two things need to be noted in this regard.

 One, Paul’s pastoral and ecclesiocentric hermeneutics was dynamic

in nature and creative in style, characterised by freedom and he there-
fore required his followers to follow his style, and not necessarily his
choices (e.g. Lategan, 1990:318-328 on Paul’s ethics).

 And two, on the one hand, Paul addressed the Christians of his
churches, a small minority in the first century, at a time when most
people had no say in political and economic matters on structural level
(cf. Hengel, 1974:41). But on the other hand, Paul’s letters are
evidence – as soon as the traditional (Reformational) legacy of under-
standing Paul allows for other interpretations as well38 – that Paul’s
advice and encouragement were often challenging to the status quo,
on religious, political, economic and cultural levels. To stay quiet
about economics, about wealth, and about poverty in South Africa
(and Africa at large) today, will be very un-Pauline. Using Pauline
sentiments for deliberating economics today will probably put more
than one thorn in a wide body of flesh (2 Cor. 12:7) – one’s own
included – but that will be quite Pauline!

37 Georgi (1992:146), however, contends that “[t]he Pauline correspondence increasingly

became a primary source for my understanding of the ancient world”. And, he adds,
“[h]ow one understands the origin of the Greco-Roman economy ... has direct bearing
on how one understands our own today” (Georgi, 1992:146).

38 And in any case, in Georgi’s (1992:142) words, “the church needs to begin to reflect on
justification by Christ in its financial offices as well as in its pulpits”.

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 485

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection

[O]ur gospel must respond to the problems of poverty and

oppression; we must not pretend that poverty does not exist or claim
that it arises primarily for different reasons [than oppressive mecha-
nisms in society]. This response is found above all in praxis ... As
Paul demonstrates in Galatians, not only the fullness, but the
authenticity of the gospel here hangs in the balance. Justification by
faith must come to expression in ‘good works’, a commitment to the
poor (Gal. 2:9-10; 5:6). If this does not happen, we are living and
preaching ‘another gospel’ (1:6-9) (Hanks, 1983:60).

Paul never justifies and certainly nowhere glorifies poverty. On the other
hand, it would not be unreasonable to place Paul firmly in line with the
biblical and reformed protestant39 notion that God is on the side of the
poor (Van Wyk, 1978:212), or to use the more contemporary phrase, has
a preferential option for the poor.40 Concerning the collection for
Jerusalem, then, one can agree with Pathrapankal (1995:1017) that it
included but went beyond charitable giving:
… the entire issue was a sharing of Christian fellowship and
solidarity, and its message stands out as a permanent reminder to
the church of all times and her theologians to commit themselves41
to the task of liberating the people of God from all oppressive and
dehumanizing structures in order to enable them to live a more
human and dignified life.

Paul’s insistence on both the need for the collection and the other
churches’ participation in it, becomes an effective symbol of liberation
and empowerment of communities and its people.

In an era or culture of entitlement, the other important contribution of

Paul on work should not be glossed over: “This underlying principle of
independence and freedom, of providing the needs of individuals and the
Christian community through hard work, is a prominent contribution of
the apostle Paul” (Jones, 1984:224).

39 E.g., “Calvin can also exhort the Christians not to long to be rich, while he strongly
urges the rich to live in modesty and not to oppress the poor” (Van Wyk, 1978:212).

40 Jobling (1993:101) argues that the biblical imperative is nowadays less in terms of “to
the ends of the earth” and more in terms of “the preferential option for the poor”.

41 Not that official or institutionalised religion has a good track record in this regard. Until
now, it was more often folk religion or popular religion which challenged the hierarchical
powers (Huizer, 1993:69-70).

486 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt

Paul required his churches, generally poor and under-resourced, to be

economically active,42 as much as he expected them to be involved in
alleviating poverty. One simple question seems to be: How should the
Christian church of today with its huge levels of affluence and riches,
with its political-ideological power, and its ability to influence political
decision-makers, with world-wide religious organisations to its disposal,43
today treat the growing global problem of poverty, especially in Africa?
And how should it go about contributing to an alternative, positive
economic dispensation?

The inadequate sense of economic benefaction to the wider community

often found in churches, as well as the market-economy of modern
society will probably require of Christian churches, the majority of which
have a colonial-missionary background, not to try and deal with the ideal
of eradicating the poverty endemic to Africa, including South Africa, on
their own. In South Africa poverty is largely synonymous with being black
(Isichei, 1995:3; cf. Pato, 1997:40), adding another complex dimension
to any attempt to address poverty. Not only churches but the intended
recipients of “financial loving-kindness” will not, in the absence of a
benefaction-system which was well-developed in the first century, be
able to replicate the material relationships and activities of the earliest
Christian communities. But, the Christian community will have to be
conscientised and will have to re-conceptualise their economic reality in
Pauline style (Rom. 12:2), cognisant of his arguments about work and
poverty.

Bibliography
BIRCH, B.C. & RASMUSSEN, L. 1978. The Predicament of the Prosperous. Biblical
Perspectives on Current Issues. Philadelphia : Westminster.
DAHL, N.A. 1977. Studies in Paul. Theology for the Early Christian Mission.
Minneapolis : Augsburg.
DICKINSON, R.D.N. 1983. Poor, yet Making Many Rich. The Poor as Agents of
Creative Justice. Geneva : WCC.
ÉLA, J. 1994. Christianity and Liberation in Africa. (In Gibellini, R., ed. Paths of
African Theology. London : SCM. p. 136-153.)
ELLIOTT, N. 1994. Liberating Paul. The Justice of God and the Politics of the
Apostle. Bible and Liberation. Maryknoll : Orbis.

42 How this will be achieved, has to be worked out in partnership between employers,
employees, unemployed, and so on. Grasping merely for terms such as “productivity”
might prove counterproductive (cf. Challenge, April 1999). Haan (1988:44) notes that
“[m]odern economy suffers from the delusion of efficiency”.

43 Of course some religious and church organisations have for many years been
attending to poverty across the globe and projects such as “Bread for the World” and
various other are active and operational. Cf. also Sider (1977:193-195).

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 487

Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on poverty: The Jerusalem collection
ELLIOTT, N. 1997. Figure and Ground in the Interpretation of Romans 9-11. (In Fowl,
S.E., ed. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Classic and Contemporary
Readings. Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology. Oxford : Blackwell. p. 371-
389.)
EVERTS, J.M. 1993. Financial Support. (In Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. & Reid,
D.G., eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove : IVP. p. 295-300.)
GEORGI, D. 1991. Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology. Trans. Green, D.
Minneapolis : Fortress.
GEORGI, D. 1992. Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for
Jerusalem. Trans. Racz, I. Nashville : Abingdon.
GONZÁLES, J.L. 1990. Faith and Wealth. A History of Early Christian Ideas on the
Origin, Significance, and Use of Money. San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco.
HAAN, R. 1988. The Economics of Honour. Biblical Reflections on Money and
Property. Trans. Forest-Flier, N. Geneva : WCC.
HANKS, T.D. 1983. God so Loved the Third World. The Bible, the Reformation, and
Liberation Theologies: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression. Trans. Dekker,
J.C. Maryknoll : Orbis.
HAYS, R.B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New
Creation. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San
Francisco : Harper.
HENGEL, M. 1974. Property and Riches in the Early Church. Aspects of a Social
History of Early Christianity. Trans. Bowden, J. London : SCM.
HINKELAMMERT, F.J. 1997. Liberation Theology in the Economic and Social
Context of Latin America: Economy and Theology, or the Irrationality of the
Rationalized. (In Batstone, D. et al., eds. Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity,
and the Americas. London & New York : Routledge. p. 25-52.)
HUIZER, G. 1993. People’s Movements and Global Elite Stategies. (In Reuver, M.,
Solms, F. & Huizer, G., eds. Kampen, Geneva : Kok, WCC. p. 69-92.)
ISICHEI, E. 1995. A History of Christianity in Africa. From Antiquity to the Present.
Grand Rapids, Lawrenceville : Eerdmans, Africa World Press.
JOBLING, D. 1993. Globalization in Biblical Studies / Biblical Studies in Globalization.
Biblical Interpretation, 1(1): 96-110.
JOHNSON, G.S. 1989. Beyond Guilt and Powerlessness. Christian Response for
Human Suffering. Minneapolis : Augsberg Fortress.
JONES, jr, A. 1984. Paul’s Message of Freedom: What does it Mean to the Black
Church. Valley Forge : Judson.
LATEGAN, B.C. 1990. Is Paul Developing a Specifically Christian Ethics in Galatia?
(In Balch, D.L., Ferguson, E. & Meeks, W.A., eds. Greeks, Romans and
Christians. Essays in Honor of Abraham Malherbe. Minneapolis : Fortress.
p. 318-328.)
MAGESSA, L. 1997. From Privatized to Popular Biblical Hermeneutics in Africa. (In
Kinoti, H.W. & Waliggo, J.M., eds. The Bible in African Christianity. Essays in
Biblical Theology. African Christianity Series. Nairobi : Acton. p. 25-39.)
McKNIGHT, S. 1993. Collection for the Saints. (In Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. &
Reid, D.G., eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove : IVP
p. 143-147.)
NORTH, G. 1974. An Introduction to Christian Economics. A Chalcedon Study.
Nutley : Craig.

488 In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489

 Jeremy Punt
NÜRNBERGER, K. 1978. The Economics of Paul. (In Nürnberger, K., ed. Affluence,
Poverty and the Word of God. An Interdisciplinary Study Program of the
Missiological Institute Mapumulo. Durban : Lutheran Publishing House. p. 163-
171.)
NÜRNBERGER, K. 1994. An Economic Vision for South Africa. The Task of the
Church in the Post Apartheid Economy. Pietermaritzburg : Cluster.
O’BRIEN, P.T. 1993. Fellowship, Communion, Sharing. (In Hawthorne, G.F., Martin,
R.P. & Reid, D.G., eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove :
IVP. p. 293-295.)
PATHRAPANKAL, J. 1995. Apostolic Commitment and “Remembering the Poor”. A
Study in Gal. 2:10. (In Fornberg, T. & Hellholm, D., eds. Texts and Contexts.
Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars
Hartman. Oslo : Scandinavian University Press. p. 1001-1018.)
PATO, L.L. 1997. Indigenisation and Liberation. A Challenge to Theology in the
Southern African Context. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 99: 40-46.
POBEE, J.S. 1993. Africa in search of Identity. (In Reuver, M., Solms, F. & Huizer,
G., eds. The Ecumenical Movement Tomorrow. Suggestions for Approaches
and Alternatives. Kampen, Geneva : Kok, WCC. p. 387-398.)
PUNT, J. 2000. Towards constructing Paul’s economic vision on work. In die Skriflig,
34(3):1-21.
SCHMIDT, T.E. 1993. Riches and Poverty. (In Hawthorne, G.F., Martin, R.P. & Reid,
D.G., eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove : IVP. p. 826-827.)
SCHRAGE, W. 1988. The Ethics of the New Testament. Trans. Green, D.E.
Philadelphia : Fortress.
SIDER, R.J. 1977. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. A Biblical Study. London :
Hodder & Stoughton.
TROBISCH, D. 1994. Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins. Minneapolis :
Fortress.
VAN WYK, J.H. 1978. Ethical Principles and Economic Facts. A Theological-Ethical
Reflection on the Problem of World Poverty. (In Nürnberger, K., ed. Affluence,
Poverty and the Word of God. An Interdisciplinary Study Program of the
Missiological Institute Mapumulo. Durban : Lutheran Publishing House. p. 207-
220.)
VERHEY, A. 1984. The Great Reversal. Ethics and the New Testament. Grand
Rapids : Eerdmans.

Key concepts:
faith and materiality
Jerusalem collection
Paul’s vision on poverty
righteousness, fellowship and sharing
Kernbegrippe:
geldinsameling vir Jerusalem
geloof en die materiële
geregtigheid, gemeensaamheid en mededeelsaamheid
Paulus – siening van armoede

In die Skriflig 34(4) 2000:469-489 489