1.

The Collection
In Gal 2; lOa we have, in Paul's own words, the lalter part UI of the Jeru-
salem agreement: "Only they woold have us remember the poor" (,....•••
.... _..x ""w<l"-~''')· Grammatically, this is the continuation of 2:6b
"those who wefC of repute added nothing to me~, but some commen·
tators argue that IDa cannot be interpreted a~ a qualification of "added
nothing" (000.•• p0c7"•• 9....o), in which case the Collection would have been
regarded by Paul as an imposition on the part of the Jerusalem notables.'"
That Paul took the lask seriously we can see, not only from v lOb, but also
from I Cor 16; 1-4, 2 Cor 8-9 and Rom 1S;27-29.
What was the meaning of this assignment to remember the poor? Wa~ it
no more than a charitable action or did it have a more far-reaching, funda-
mental significance for relations between Jerusalem and Antioch?
It is an undisputed fact that the "poor", whom Paul and Barnabas under-
take to "remember" are the !>OOr of the church of Jerusalem. This church
seems to have been in a difficult financial situation with a number of poor
members 10 take care of. Perhaps Ihe experiment of living in a "commu-
nism of love" (to use TrotllSch's term) for almost twenty years had also
brought about the impoverishment of those who had owned something at

118. "hilltorisch fUI III die wicht;lIte 8eltimmunl del Kunvenll IW beuichnen",
Bu/rm""l1 (I9j):94).
119. AI quali6cat;on of. 6 it i. laken by Hall (l928:6\). Thi. is disputed by e.l.
BOllll"rd (I9H:43) and Muu1l(r (1~74:124).
 The Diwjbution 01 POWI!f in !he P,imW.., Chutch
the star!.'" Pre.,umably the church bad a large proportion of Galileans
"'ho had lefl their jObl and homes and gtlne to Jerusalem la await the ad-
vent of Chrill Jesus in the Holy City.''' Moreover persecution by the
lewish authonties may have: added to the poverty of the church,'" The..
circumstances hve led oomn>enlalOlS to USU",", Ihat Ihis "remembe.ing"
is meant primarily as a chantable act, designed to help the Jerusalem
Chril!ians in their dist.ns. Paul'l uplcuion in Rom 15:26 ("M""edonia
and Acbaia ha ... been pleased to make ""me oonlribution for the poor
among the saini' at leru5alem~) m\l$t refer to real poor, and this impres-
'ion is strengthened by his IlUIMe. of arguing for tbe CoUection in 2 Cor
8:13fand9:12.'''
In a famous essay Karl Holl set out to show tbat this oollection is nOC
only In upression nf Christian love for needy brethren but alln the expres-
sion nl a certain undemanding nf the Church, mo.e exaclly the self-
understanding of Ihe church in le"'''''lem.''' It is evident from the justi6ca-
linn 01 tl>e CoUcetion in Rom 15:27, that the Gentiles are thought 10 be in
a debt 01 gratitude, not to the poor bUI 10 the whole church of lerusalem
lrom which Ihey ha ... roceived spirilualuea<ure:s. Holl infers that not only
"the saints~ (.l ~,....) but also "the poor" (.l nwp) ""as a well-toown
self-designation of the Christians in Jerusalem.''' This "holine.." and God-
plealing "JIOvCIlY" were the foundation of the legal claims of Ihese Chri...
lia"" on other churches. Both An1ioc:h (see Acts II :25 11") and 1l1e, lhe
churches of Paul Ire regarded by Jerusalem as being under an obligalion to
support 11I(,i, mather church, and this legal obligation is evident even in
Paul'. language.'" Jcl\lsalcm is the pennanent centre of Ihe Church, whe.e
 120. The uprtlSion ~reli&io~ Liebeskommuni:lrllus" is found in T~lllcl, (1912:
49). Nir;I:I. citts Do<kI ~Thcy .,..,ied (the system of panial and volunl.Ory COm-
munism) out in the ownomically disastrous way of realizing capital and dislnbulinl
il as iDrome" (1966:23 t. D. 42). Ct",,,I, 0971:92_96) lllId H"t~clte~ (1971:233)
..e amona llu>sc who doubt the e.islenc:e of any "Li<:b<;skommu~ismus··. See lhe bal.
anttd diSClJUion in Braun (1966:1, 143-149 and II. ISS-U7).
121. Coppol' O%6:J3), Ge",,,11 0971:93), Thine" (19741:269).
122. Nicl:le (1966:24).
123. Idem. p. 110.
124. I cite this essay .. "'HoIl (l928)" and aive the paae-numbers from this publi_
cation. as is customary.
125. ScltUl': "of the saints" (.... d'·.... ) is nol lenitivus partitivu. bul lellilivus
epcxeaetieus (1977:436).
\26. "\'aulus beuiehllOl die Abpbc: bald mil erbaUlid'en "uodriieken als 0''''''.
und " ......, X.",, '~M-r", bald mit mebr =hlJich klinrenden all ....~" ~"''''n'•.
~.-'I,.". Holl (1928:60).
Dovies ~ems not 10 have considered lhe laller Iroup of terms when he charllCler'
ius Paul'a terms for tbe collection as non·juridical, and dra.... lhe conchosion that
this shows the collection to have been quile _oluntary and nOl. • tax (1974:199).
The terminoloty Paul uses cannot of itself supply proof of the dc,ree of volunl.OrineSi.
The Distribution 0/ Power within the Church
the apostles of Christ reside, the "pillars" of the Church, and "the holy";
"
and for this reason Jerusalem has a certain right to supervize the rest of the
Church and to receive taxes.'"
Most seholars consider that Holl (and later StauDtr)'" goes too far
when he uses terms such as "right of taxation" about the Collection. But on
the other hand, it is now generally admitted that it was more than an act of
charity. As is seen from 2 Cor 8-9 and Rom 15:25 ff, Paul sincerely wishes
to create by this collection a concrete expression of the unity of the Jewish
and Gentile sections of the Church.'" By this means the Gentile churches
are to be brought to recognize their continuity with the church in Jerusalem
and through it with Israel and to acknowledge their enormous debt of grati-
tude. And presumably the Collection will also have an effect on the Jeru-
salem church and be an impressive sign to the Jewish Christian church that
God has also called the Gentiles to faith in Christ Jesus and given them a
share in his grace. This "ecumenical" or unifying purpose is inherent in the
action as such, and has been stressed lind underlined by Paul himself.
We can thus state that the significance of the Collection is connected
with ecdesiology or the conception of what the Church is.'" And this leads
us to the decisive question: which understanding of the Church does the
Collection express, Jerusalem's or Paul's?
Many scholars choose the latter view, probably because almost all the
evidence we have about the Collection is found in Paul's letters. The pur-
pose and the meaning of the Collection is then analysed from Paul's utter-
ances, without taking up the question of whether the apostle might be bound
by, or alleast rellect, the opinion of the receiving party (Jerusalem).'"

as is obvious from 2 Cor 1-9. Here Paul 'nsist. On the voluntario,,"," of the collection,
but al lhe ume tim. pUll lucb 'tron, moral pr...ure on the Corinthia.ns to pUli,i.
pate (seneroully) in illbat the ahernltiv. of nOl partieipllin, is virlually ucluded.
121. It i.10 be obMrvcd thlt Ho/I does not make any analolY betwe.n the Pauline
collection for Jerusalem and 1M Jewish. temple·tax, bul merely cil" lhi, opinion from
Pfleidere' aIld Holtzmann in bis nole 28 (on p. .'18). On p. 62 he ulkJ about "ein
Icwisaes aesteuerunprecht".
12'. StauDe, calls 1M collection "Kirchemltetler" (l960:166). For a criticism of
his view. $Ce OM'it; (196.'1: 11 II. 28).
129. Th ... a majority of scholan, e.,. MUllet (l9.'14:28.'1), KilOS: (I9.'1.'1:41 II. 23),
NicHe (1966:111-129, et p...sim), Cerfaus: {196.'1:220 fl, If";", (1972: 101 fl,
Oept. (l97J:I.'I), Harrell (l97Jb:17), Davie. (l974:200), MUll"" (1974: (26).
130. Oeo'/li summarius lhe discussion afler Holl by statinl thaI his hypolhesis of
the col1.ctiOfl bein, a cenlrali.tic church·tax h.. been abandoned, and then continue.
"Daflir hat sich lber all,cmein die Einsleht durch....t.l, dill! Kollekl. und Kirchen·
veratiindnis aufl en,st. mileinander verknijpft sind" (196.'1: 10).
Ill. So also Oeorgi in his hislory of lhe research in the field: "Di. FrI,. nach
den Intentionen der Jerusalemer in se><hwundcn.-lie,t der Ton do<:h luf den paulin·
ischen Intentionen, woIIei die praktisc:he, urn nicht au SI.en pidoJOpsche Absieht des
Paul~tark berauqurbeilel wir<,l" (196.'1:10).
38 The DiSlribution of Power in the Primitive Church

According to certain writers the Collection must be interpreted from the

context of Pauline missionary strategy and ecdcsiology as we lind it in
Rom 9_11.'" From irs beginning as an act of charitable support the Col-
lection is thought to develop to be more and more connected with the
Pauline mission to the Gentiles. The ullimale purpose of Ihis is to provoke
the Jews to conversion through envy of the Gentiles and their obvious par·
ticipation in salvation (Rom 10-11). The Collection becomes part of this
scheme. The full representation of the Pauline churches coming to Jeru-
salem is designed to remind the Jews (and not only the Christian ones) of
the prophecies concerning lhe pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem (Is 2,
Mic 4)-a powerful sign that the last days are dawning, which will re-
vitalize the mission to the Jews (which mission Paul knew had stagnated,
Rom 9:30, 10: 1-3, 16 tr)'.. and make an impression upon Judaism at its
centre.
Some parts of this interpretation are less well founded than others,'" but
it is probable that the Collection has eventually come to acquire a signifi-
cance for Paul himself that it did not have from the beginning. The real
significance of the Collection is not the money as such or the amount of
help it will bring, but the demonstration of unity between Jews and Gen-
tiles within the Church. In this sum is included money from a great number
of (perhaps all of) Paul's churches, which in addition are personally repre-
sented by a (unnecessarily) large delegation of Gentile Christians.'n Even
if no "pilgrimage of the nations" or "eschatological provocation" were
intended by Paul, it is reasonable to assume that it was of the utmost im-
ponan~ to him to show Jerusalem what God had effected among the
Gentiles through him and so "seal to them this fruit" (Rom 15:2S. my
translation). Tile delivery of the Collection is no mere fulfilment of an
assisnment undenaken to help Jerusalem and manifest Church unity, it is
also a proof of the value of Paul's work as Apostle to the Gentiles. Why
else did he change his mind from when he wrote I Cor 16:4 ("If it seems

U2. M"nci (1954:28J_300), Ceo'Ii (1965) .nd No'dl~ (1966),

OJ. M"n<;k (1954:295),
\)4. Cf, 8"IIm"nn', review of M"nck', book (t959) and Schmit/H'/s', review of
Oro'Ifs book (1967), D".~J (t974:202_217) hu shown that the apl)'lIe's lie, with
Ihe Holy Land w.akened .nd that his int.r••1 in Ihe .sc:halololi••1 role of kru:l8tem
a.
and rhe mission to the J...... touenod the yun won( hy, whit. at the :l8me time hi,
own part of the Church .am. de6niloty into rhe fore as lhe foremost field for God's
esc:hatololic.t action. IIQides. MII".k (and Nickte) hue a 100 riBidty and lileratty
"apoeatypt;e" und."lafldinl of Paul's esehalololY.
US, See M"n.l (l9S4:288_292) and Nickle (1966:68 f) for a discu"'on 011 rh.
historical vatue of ....11 20:4.
The Qi5lribul;On of Power wirhin rhe Church 39
advisable rhat I should go also ... ") and decide ro risk his life by coming
in person ro Jerusalem?"·
But to see the Collection in historical perspective we must also investi-
gate what the Jerusalem church thought about it. The leaders of Jerusalem
can hardly have shared, or even known of, the Pauline view.''' Why did
they find it filling and proper thar the Genrile Christians in Antioch and
its erl\lirons should help to relie\·e the distress in Jentsalem? Must we nOt
assume thaI the Collection right from the beginning had Ihe character of
an obligation, given and undertaken in the form of a solemn and binding
agreemenr?"· And of course this obligation is not simply a formaliz.ation of
the Christian duty of neighbourly love-as if the Christians in Jentsalem
were absolutely and permanently the most distressed within the whole
Church. Rather, the element of obligalion is connected with the Jerusalem
church's theolngical understanding of itself. It is generally agreed that the
church in Jerusalem thought of itself as a holy and elect group within Israel
with an eschatological task of witnessing to and expecting the second com-
ing of the Risen Messiah Jesus.'" And often it is considered thatlhis high-
strung, apocalyptic self-understanding was incompatible with a concern for
everyday, practical problems and with a legal way of thinking. Thus the
agreemenl about the Collection is considered not to have contained any
legal element."· But as a fact legal and eschatological thinking are not in-
compatible; instead Ihe sacred-legal ("sakral-rechtliche") element is an
integrating part of lhe election·hiSlorical and salvation-historical perspec-
live lhal can be found both in lerusalem and in Paul's concept of lhe
"Gospel".'" The church in lerusalem is in ils own and Paul's eyes entilled

'36. 8,m.bmm (1971:137), Kiiumdnn (197.:391).

In. Nickle conced" lhal Paul never uplicilly say. Ihal he anlicip.ted lhat lhe
collection would provo~e lhe convenion of hrael, .nd ha. to produce some clever
(bill unpersu..ive) reasoning 10 m.ke this .ilence pt. ...ible (1966:1,,0-10). cr,
Scltmitltnlr (J 967: 67. ).
1l8. Slultl"",c1,e, .hoWS, with the help of J.wish and H.II.nt$tic lU~, thaI ~obl;·
gation", ..")...... <lojI,,~.... (ltom t$:27) and ~rem.mber" ..""......... (Gal 2:10)
have a 1.,"1 Ind uchaloIOlic.l-sp;ritu.1 COnt.nl. The J.ller t.rm .Iands for an inn.r
COmm;lm.nt lo,.th.r with. corresponding exlernal or concrete obligation to • per_
.on, an a!tilude S. find. corroboraled by Paul', ar,ument in 2 Cor 9: 12 f (1968: 10l 0,
Ct. the terminology uoed of the COlieClion by SOme r.cenl commentaton: "celle
$Drlde v..oalitt", Cerlaux (196S:lS7): "Vertr.,.klauscl, pnichf\ 5Iulllml'(l.., (1968:
100, (03); "Verpniclllun,". Eckerr (1971: 191 fJ; "Aullale, I.Jchuldde Verpllichlung",
Hdi"l (]972:242 f); "rechlliche Verpllicbtunl", ScMi•• (1977:436).
1l9. S« e.g. GM,gi (196$:23-30), Kiiumdn" (1974:J86).
140, S« Muu"e. (1974:124 f, who cit.,. oth.r$ of tM Sam. opinion). Ocpke
(l973:8H and G_li (1965:17, JO).
1,,1. Siultimac/t., (1968:69, 87 f). Sec below on Paul's view of Jeru....l.m.
40 The Disuibulion 01 Power in lile Primilive Church
to support from other Christian churches and not primarily on moral
grounds but on theological grounds, viz. its unique salvation·hislorical role.
If this is not given its proper place in the understanding of the Collection,
the element of utilitarian exchange (money versus recognilion of Gentile
Mission) will tend to be overstressed.···
We should not forgct that the agreement about the Collection is pan and
parcel of the agreement thai the church in Antioch and its apostles have a
missionary responsibility and a "sphere" of their own. But the centre of the
Church and the somewhat independent periphery must be united by con-
crete measures now that the observance of the Torah is no longer a com-
mon feature of the whole Church. As Klaus Btrger bas argued'" the Col-
lection should be seen in this perspective and understood as analogous 10
the institution of "alms for Israel". Uncircumcised, God-fearing Gentiles
used to give alms 10 the poor of Israel in order to express their wish to
belong to the righteous people and share their confession of the one God.
There are even indications that through alms-giving a God-fearer could be-
come regarded as belonging to God's people without being circumcised.'"
The Collection for the Jerusalem church is thus to be underslood as a
sign thai the Gentile Christians have been converted (0 the same faith as the
Jewish Christians and are incorporated into the same new covcnanl, al-
though their road to righteousness does not go via the law. Connection with
the cenlre of the Church is indispensable for the Genliles and is conse-
quently safeguarded by an obligation which cannot be characterized as any-
thing less than legal.
This juridico-theological interpretation of the Collection agreement was
not very easy to convey to Gentile converts, although it expresses what
were vital interests even [or Paul: a confirmation both of the independence
and imrinsic value or Gentile Christians and of their essential solidarity
with the centre of the Church.'" This is why we lind Paul working oUlthe
secondary reasons for the Collection in his letters (brotherly love. the
norm of reciprocity, 00''-... as obedience to Chrisl's gospel, etc.), though
the primary reasons are sometimes apparent (as when he uses terms such
as "service" (8.......,.. or ,I....npy ....) for it).'"
Against the postulated legal or compulsory character or the Collection
one could point to the fact that it is expressly said to be voluntary (2 Cor

14Z. At in G~ ..... II (1971), Eh,h".dl (1969:72 f. 8' f) an<l ChtJd",;ck (19'9:'>.

143. K Btrltr (\977a).
144. Idrm. p. 187 ft.
14'. Idrm, p. ZOZK. Ct. Ch..d",ick (l9H:13) on the implalion of I dUll ,true·
lure of the Church.
146. K B"I" (1977.: (99), H..inz (1972: 242_24'). Cf.•bove. n. 126.
The D;5l,ibution of Power within the Church 41
8:8,10; 9:7), and Ibat this was an important feature of il in Paul's eyes.'"
But to cite 2 Cor 8-9 as evidence actually cuts both ways, as it is obvious
that these chapters are a veritable battery of arguments against the some-
what lal and unwilling attitude towards the Collection in Corinth. It is true
thaI no orders are given about the extent of individual contributions (see,
however, 2 Cor 9:5-6), bUI the moral pressure on the Corinthian church
is so formidable that it is difficult to believe that it could have refused to
participate if it were to continue its relationship with the apostle at all. The
Collection cannol very well be described as voluntary for the Pauline
churches, or for the apostle himself (d. Gal 2: lOa), eveo if the arguments
for it are ethical and theological and nOI strictly formal or legal.'"
Although the task of collecting money for Jerusalem was probably recog-
nil:ed as a solemn and binding obligation by both parties of the agreement,
it is not improbable that they interpreted it differently. The church of Jeru-
salem understood it is a "duty" that documented its spiritual supremacy,
while Paul gave it a more theological interpretation as an acknowledgement
of Jerusalem's actual importance in God's election- and salvation-history.'"
The existing differences in interpretation deepened in time with the his-
torical development of the parties. The Jewish nationalistic movement and
its suspicion of Gentiles grew steadily during the fifties. This made every
contaci or collaboration with Gentiles, and especially the work of a
"traitor" like Paul (who certainly had a bad reputation in Jerusalem, d.
Acts 21 :21, 28) a real danger to the Christians in Jerusalem. And the
Antioch lneident had damaged relations between Paul and Jerusalem-not
only on the pan of Paul, but also on the pan of Jerusalem. The agitation of
Judaists from Palestine (d. below) in Paul's own churches is indirect evi·
dence of Ihis. Perhaps the Jerusalem church as a whole harboured a slight
suspicion: Was Paul really to be trusted any more?'"

147. Nickle (l966:12S-127).

148. II ia important DOl to be so lOCioloa;cally naive as to think that there is only
One alternalivc be.." Ca) a .ivinl un<lcr strict formal, Jelal oI!li.alion, which if nee-
"aary can bt. enforced, or Cb) froe, tllOntan....us li.inl from a aood .nd lovinl heart.
"Non,juridical" does not mean ''voluntary''. Thc rderencc to lh....lo.ical ...umenu
and ethiul lIOl""'" un, in the corr«t contut. co..atitute a ,tronl prcaaure_and I
consider that thi, i. the ca5C: here.
149. S,.. Mmaehe, (1968: lOS). Cf. for .imilar diatilKtions betwccn Jeruplem', and
Paul'. interpret.tion, of the COIlCClion .011 Campellhal<.,n (l9S7,69 n. 81 and 1969:
34), Wi/elcellr (1964:735 fl. Mundie and Wendland aJ ejt~d by HQin~ (1972;242
n. I) and Sehliu (1971:80 n. S).
ISO, On lrowinl Zcllotiam, !ICe Goppell (1966:40, 54 f) and cf. Bornlcamm'. re-
mark .bout '"zunellmendc lud.i,ierunl der Urpmcindc· (l9S9:663). On how the
..,).tiona betwccn P.ul and Jeruaal~m deveJQJlCd Ifter tile Council. ae~ Sl.. hlma~hu
(1968:102 n. I), KJisem1Vl1I (1974:384, 392) .nd Calchpole (1977:443 fl.
42 The Distribution 01 Power in !he Primitive Church
011 the other hand Paul's successful work in the years succeeding the
Council and his separation from Antioch eventually gave the Collection
something of a new accent. Without going to such lengths as Munck et al.
we can reasonably presume that when Paul turned towards Jerusalem after
having completed his work in the east (Rom 15;23), the Collection ap-
peared to him more as an tltpression of his successful work among Gentiles
and of the independence of the Gentile section of the Church than as a
humble nibute 10 the supremacy of Jerusalem. But would the increasingly
"Jewish" church in Jerusalem accept the result of the Council agreement?
The SlllX:eSS of the Gentile Mission was greater than they had ever thought
possible in A.D. 48-49; perhaps it was also greater (and more menacing)
than they wished now?'" With all these factors in mind it is nOI surprising
that Paul feared that the Collection may nOI be "acceptable to the saints·'
in Jerusalem (Rom 15:31b) and beseeched the church in Rome to inter-
cedefor him (v 30).
We read the end of the story about the Great Collection in ACls 21: 17-
26, and see that Paul's misgivings proved 10 be justified.... There can be no
doubt thai, but for the political situation in the Jewish capilal, the money
Paul and his delegation of Gentile Chrislians had brought with them would
have been exceedingly welcome. But it could not be received in the way
Paul would have liked: openly, officially proclaimed to (Ihe church of)
Jerusalem. That would have been an impossible provocation of Jewish
feelings. And besides there was already a cloud of suspicion hanging over
Paul and all his work, which must be removed (v 21 f). A compromise
was proposed which enabled the church to receive the Collection from the
Gentiles (thereby acknowledging them as fully Christian and a work of the
Lord) without antagonizing the zealous Jews in the same city: Paul was to
undertake the cost of paying the expenses of four men who had made
Nazirite vows. As the vulnerable party the Jewish Christian leaders had
every cause 10 ask for alld be grallied such a special form of the transmis-
sion of the Collection as would not condemn them in the eyes of devout
Jews. And so the money was delivered, as a result of these negotiations,
partly in the rorm of payment for sacrifices in the Temple--a delivery as
silent as possible and a "crashing failure" as far as Paul's plans were con-

1.11. ct. tile remark.> of rh.UK~ (19]7:106) on why Paul', (or the Genlile Mis·
,iO<\'I) IU«CSI limply had to Inlll<ln;..., the ehurch in Jerusalem.
152.1 folio.... HtJtnd,.~ (1971:606-614), Geor,; (196':88 f, wilh n. )40), Born·
kQ",m (1966:160 f) Ind WI/d.ns (L914:1l1 n. 70) in the opiniOOlhat this pcricopc
conl.l.inl reliable information about what hapP<"tll'd ....hen Plul ume to Jeru,all'm to
deliver his <:ollcction.
The Di5lribulion of Power wilhin the Church 43
cerned.... His secondary, theological interpretation of the Collection had to
yield to the way the Jerusalem church wanted it to be interpreted and
treated. We are forced to conclude that Paul's intention and interpretation
were not sufficiently strong to change the course of the underlying historical
process. The Great Collection had begun as a manifestation of the Jeru-
salem leaders' conception of the Church; and their interpretation of it must
be seen as its enduring definition.'"
We do not know how the Collection was received by this church. Some
think that it was well received and healed the thrc:atening cleft between the
two s~tions of the Church.'" But the arrest of Paul /I few days later must
have ca\lsed a storm of antipathy to break out against all Christians in JeTIJ-
salem and will in all likelihood have discredited "his" Collection in their
eyes. This may account for the remarkable silence about it in Acts (d. the
veiled reference in 24:17): being something of a missionary and diplo-
malic calaslrophe, it was best 10 pass over it in merciful silence.
The conclusion of the above discussion of the Great Collection is that
the apostle Paul is a lillIe more dependent on historical facts such as the
original decision in Jerusalem and the compulSQry character of the assign-
ment to collecl money for Jerusalem lhan is realized when one first reads his
statements about them. And this is confirmed by the outcome of his under-
taking, where once again the Jerusalem church manifests its superiority
and reduces Paul's role to that of being the one who collected money for
them. In view of this it could be discussed whether the often-made modern
distinction between the "spiriwal" and "legal" supremacy of the Jerusalem
church is based on any historically discernible phenomenon.

2. Jerusalem Influence in the Pauline Region

We saw in the previous section that the obligation to make a collection
under which Paul and Antioch had placed themselves at the Council con-
stituted a permanent influence on the part or the Jerusalem church on Paul's
work as an independent apostle to the Gentiles, roughly during the period
A.D. 49-56 (58).'" This was, however, an obligation which the apostle

lB. Nickl~ (1966:1~' f). Cf. GM'Ki (196~:89). Both Nickle and G,orii main·
tain thai Paul ~iew«l and intended the collection as a Al~atiOfl-h;storiul pro.ocation.
and both of ihem admit thai in this intention he failed rompletely.
On the ~~mpromisc" character of the agreement to undertake the payment for
these sacriocCJ., tee Ehrl,,,,dt (1969:107 ff) and Mafy (1969: 93 f).
1~4. Hajn, (1912:243. the final ""ragraph).
155. E.•. Njclrl~ (1966:7(1...72). None of his arguments is compellin•.
1~6. On Pauline .hronoloIY. Ke Fin.mytr (l970b:t 4-9), Rabinstm (1976:]1 n.
I, and Chapter lIT passim), and SuM, detailed ;n~estilation (197j).