Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Acts and Paul's relationship to Jerusalem

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Acts and Paul's relationship to Jerusalem
  • Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 05:58:48 -0700 (PDT)



[Loren]

> > Really? In Gal. 2:2 he subordinates himself to the
> > Jerusalem pillars, and in Gal. 2:10 (and elsewhere
> > in
> > other letters) he acknowledges the collection --
> > i.e.
> > that he agreed to pay his franchise fee and become
> > part of the Jerusalem/apostolic family.


[Mesfin]

> You made a reference to Gal. 2:2 which is supposedly
> to parallel Acts. 15.


[Loren]

I do not suppose this. Gal. 2:1-10 = Acts 11:29-30.
Acts 15 is a later, public, and formal conference
occuring after the writing of Galatians. It convened
precisely in order to deal with the controversies
erupting in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14), Galatia (Gal.
3:1-5, 4:8-10, 5:2-3) -- and perhaps elsewhere in Asia
Minor -- on account of the open-ended decision of Gal.
2:1-10. See the archives.


[Mesfin]

> Notice, according to Paul in Gal, he went to
> Jerusalem not as a delegate
> "sent" of Antioch as portrayed in Acts but because
> of a "revelation." Then
> Paul argues "I set before them the Gospel that I
> preached among the
> Gentiles...". This does not mean, as you suggested
> that "he went to
> subordinate himself to the so called 'pillars'" but
> rather, I assume, "What
> is going on here? Here is my Gospel and tell me on
> my face that it is
> lacking!"


[Loren]

This interpretation is similar to Phil Esler's. He
writes (Galatians, p. 131): "The best way to interpret
Gal. 2:2 in line with the agonistic nature of the
meeting is that Paul is saying, 'Look at the results
of my work and tell me where I have gone wrong!' This
is his way to stifle criticism of his evangelism, not
to solicit approval or accreditation for it." But
Esler (and you) must gloss over the crucial phrase,
"lest I am running in vain". "Lest I am running in
vain" makes clear that Paul would not have implemented
his gospel (even though he knew it to be valid, since
it came from God and no one else) without the approval
of the apostolic community.


[Mesfin]

> The collection was neither a
> "franchise fee" nor an appeal for membership in
> Jerusalem.


[Loren]

I'm not denying that a substantial part of the
collection was intended for the poor in Judea. But I
also believe it was a franchise fee of sorts, by which
Paul was paying for his "membership" in the apostolic
family. Donald Akenson, ever cynical, actually
believes the collection had nothing at all to do with
benevolent intentions for the dispossessed:

"Paul said the collection was for the poor, and he
must have used that explanation as he tirelessly
begged from community to community, but that was a
face-saving formula. No one was starving among the
faithful in Jerusalem, nor were a significant number
even seriously poor. If they were, Paul would not have
taken a decade to collect money for them and to
schlepp it to Jerusalem. No, the financial
contribution was a quid pro quo. . . Paul was paying
what we today would call a franchise fee. Pay or you
can't play." (Saint Saul, pp. 164-165)

First of all, I don't know whence Akenson acquires
enough confidence to assert that there were no
starving or poor Christians in Jerusalem. The apostles
themselves weren't faring too badly by this time, but
surely others were not. However, I have no problems
acknowledging the collection partly as a franchise
fee; it's not as crass as it sounds. As in our own
time, collected money like this can be used not only
for altruistic purposes but for an organization's
welfare.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page