1985, 68), Paul’s interest was hardly to apply this principle generally. He aimed to foster a unity of Greek and Judean, of Jewish and Gentile believers (9:6-15). He hoped to foster a vital reciprocity between the Corinthian and Jerusalem followers of Christ (8:14). Whether he realistically envisioned a time or circumstance when the saints in Jerusalem would materially assist the needy in Corinth we simply cannot say. At least, on principle, Paul did not rule out such an eventuality (“their abundance may be for your need,” v. 14b). In Rom 15:27 Paul later invoked another principle, namely that Gentiles who received the “spiritual gift” from the Jerusalem church should now reciprocate with “material [or fleshly]
things.” However, the partnership of mutual give and take that Paul advocated here would allow neither party a superior position. If the Corinthians make a gift without at least hypothetically recognizing a reciprocity from the Jerusalem holy ones, they can as benefactors assume superiority. If the saints in Jerusalem assume the role of divine agents without any reciprocity from the Gentiles then they become superior. In Paul’s formula and God’s economy of giving there is no superior and inferior. Given his early experience with the Corinthians, Paul had good reason to worry about tendencies toward a form of religious puffery that assigned others an inferior status. He also was concerned that Gentile believers would disassociate themselves from their “spiritual” moorings in the religion of Israel. Either implicitly or explicitly, the Jerusalem collection offered a corrective to those sectarian tendencies.
Exodus 16:18 (LXX), which Paul cited almost verbatim, aptly reinforces his point in v. 15. The Israelites in the Sinai who “gathered much had nothing left, and those who gathered little lacked nothing” (AT). When shared, there was enough manna for all; when hoarded, the loss was total. A near contemporary of Paul, Philo of Alexandria, appealed to the same passage to underscore the importance of “equality” and mutual responsibility (Her. 191). We see, therefore, that Paul, Philo, and the Corinthians all inhabited a world that affirmed this emphasis on equity.
This section opens with special “thanks” (charis) to God for the “zeal”
(NRSV, “eagerness”) for the Corinthians (v. 16) that Paul and Titus share.
Such a prayerful beginning already assigned to Titus an importance that urged acceptance, and introduced and commended Titus (and the
“brothers”) who were coming to assist, advise, organize, and encourage the completion of the offering. Although Paul attributed to them the same
“eagerness” or zeal for the Corinthians that he claims for himself, he was no romantic. He knew that even children whom parents deeply love can be absolutely exasperating. Nevertheless, Paul’s own zeal (spoudēn) for the Corinthians located him in a position to recognize the zeal of Titus. He knew first hand Titus’s efforts on behalf of the offering in Macedonia (8:6), and now Paul commended him as a man of divinely inspired zeal who cared deeply about the Corinthians. While this zeal was a recognized attribute of an effective administrator in the Greco-Roman world (Betz 1985, 70), it was more. It connoted earnestness, seriousness, dedication, conscientiousness, genuine skill, diligence, reliability, and upright moral character, and in Titus all of these qualities, Paul believed, were combined and harnessed in the service of Christ.
Even when zeal claimed a religious authorization and purpose Paul recognized the ambiguity hiding in the word spoudē. Zeal could be a fruit of the spirit (7:12), or it could be misguided (Rom 10:2), or even dangerously wrong and destructive (Phil 3:6). Titus’s zeal, however, Paul thought was divinely inspired (v. 16), and his voluntary acceptance of Paul’s commission (v. 17) confirmed, Paul believed, his suitability to head the delegation coming to assist with the completion of the offering project.
Paul and Titus had a history. Paul’s co-worker was, after all, a trusted fellow missionary and Gentile who had been with the apostle since the Jerusalem conference many years earlier. On this important mission, he was to be accompanied by two anonymous “brothers” (v. 18).
The identity of the two brothers is a mystery. Given their importance their anonymity is strange indeed. Whether their names have been deliberately removed later because of their subsequent notoriety is possible but hardly provable. Equally plausible is the view that Paul leaves them nameless to emphasize the role and importance of Titus. Names in the ancient world can and often did bestow status, and anonymity did the reverse.
One brother, Paul noted, is “famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel” (v. 18, RSV). He was chosen democratically,
“appointed by the churches,” possibly by Macedonian churches, and thus was commissioned as an “apostle” of those churches (v. 23). Was he a traveling missionary like Apollos who was eloquent, popular, and trusted?
Was he sent to give the collection effort transparency? Was the fulsome praise of Titus designed to validate Paul’s appointment of him as the leader of the delegation and to retain control of the offering project? And was his appointment of one other brother designed to retain control of the offering effort (v. 22)? Was Paul’s autocratic choice of Titus and the other brother seen to conflict with the democratic process of the churches? While we can hardly know the answer to these questions, they hint at a swirl of issues lurking in the subtext of this passage.
Paul appears to acknowledge the practical benefit of having the
“renowned” brother on the team. As a delegate of the churches, he would lend the process credibility. Since the social and cultural landscape was rife with religious charlatans peddling their message for gain, it was important to guard against the slightest hint of corruption. Thus, to protect against charges of embezzlement and fraud, Paul willingly accepted the envoys from the churches “to show our goodwill,” and to shield from “blame” (vv.
19-20). In v. 22 Paul commends a second anonymous brother. Quite unlike the first, he only briefly refers to him as “our brother” and “apostle” of the churches (v. 23), and takes note of his “zeal” or diligence (spoudaiōn). (The reference to the “apostles” [apostoloi] of the churches differs from Paul’s self-designation as an “apostle of Christ,” which derives its power from the sender. There is surely a hierarchy of authority and power implicit in this ranking of the apostles. It was Paul who issued the orders, not the eloquent apostle of the churches, and his assumed authority to issue orders reveals who was in control.)
Whether Paul commissioned the other brother in response to the election of the brother designated apostle of the churches we can hardly know.
While the first brother was a popular preacher, Paul makes no reference to the popularity or rhetorical skills of this “brother.” While he praised both brothers as representatives of the churches and Christ’s glory, he especially emphasizes his association with Titus as a “partner” and “co-worker” on
“your behalf” (v. 23). The anonymity of the brothers highlights the
authority of Titus as Paul’s representative, and implicitly makes Titus the leader of the delegation.
In v. 24 Paul directs the church to welcome the delegation, to give evidence of their love—a theme of the letter (8:7-8)—by giving it concrete expression. Then Paul can boast about their generosity as well as that of the impoverished Macedonians. The proof of their love, Paul urged, should be twofold: (1) a generous participation in the offering venture and (2) a warm welcome of the delegation commissioned to promote and to complete the collection effort. One can easily understand how such a statement could foster resentment among those who were lukewarm about the collection and skeptical of Paul’s making their participation a litmus test of their love. As we shall soon see those reservations received almost immediate expression.
Had their mission succeeded, the story we are about to hear would have been entirely different.
The inspiration for completing the offering Paul hopes to arouse with an appeal to two examples. First, the example of “dirt poor” Macedonians begging for the opportunity to share in this symbolic act Paul offered to inspire a Corinthian effort that was lagging. The Macedonian example made it difficult for the Corinthians, whether advantaged or destitute, to excuse themselves from participation in this grand eschatological symbolic act.
Second, the example of the Lord Jesus himself who though rich became poor in order that the poor might become rich is the theological cornerstone of this offering project. Those so enriched now are under obligation to share in some way with the “poor” in Jerusalem. By pointing to the reciprocal nature of this giving between Corinthians and Jerusalemites Paul subverts the cultural protocol that assigned the giver a superior position of power. In his giving formula there was only one superior giver, namely God through the Lord Jesus whose prevenient gift enabled the human response.
Doubtless the task of Titus and the “brothers” whom Paul commends was to set the offering in this broader theological frame.