Polhill speculates that Paul may have been from a wealthy family based on his citizenship. In order to “buy” a citizenship, one might need to spend 18 months wages or more on the necessary bribes in order to receive the honor. The fact that Paul was a tent maker from Tarsus may imply that he worked with the costly material cilcium, used for both tents and saddles.
Since Jews were known to have worked in the very active textile industry in Tarsus, it is possible that Paul’s family was connected to this trade. On the other hand, Paul may have learned his trade through his rabbinical training. A trade was required in order to support one’s study of the Torah, tent-making may have been a choice he made while studying in Jerusalem rather than the family business. Tent-making was potentially lucrative. Tarsus was known for a particular felt-like material made from the wool of goats native to the region. This cloth and other linens were expensive and required special handling. It is possible Paul and his family worked with this sort of cloth, doing jobs for the wealthy of Tarsus.
It is possible that Paul took a voluntary vow of poverty after his conversion, renouncing the wealth of his family. This is based on the early disciples in Acts 2-3 who sold everything and “lived in common.” While there is nothing that rules out Paul living in poverty, it seems that he may have relied on his wealth to finance his ministry. He is not known for accepting gifts from churches yet he is able to travel extensively, working in the cities he hopes to reach for the gospel as a tent-maker.
On the other hand, Martin Hengel speculates that Paul’s education may be a hint at his social status. If he came to Jerusalem at a young age, then he was likely from a “well-to-do” family which could afford to send a son to study on Jerusalem.
Paul’s extensive travels were expensive. He had to finance travel for his group. He likely rented a place to stay in Corinth and in Ephesus he rented a room to teach in for over two years. On at least two occasions Paul had to support himself while under house arrest (Caesarea and Rome). In Rome he lived in a rented house for two years and was unable to work to support himself. Is it possible that Paul was able to use his family’s wealth in order to pay for travel and housing?
One key bit of evidence is that Paul sponsored a vow in Acts 21. The Nazarite vow was a Jewish tradition that was supposed to be a deeply spiritual exercise. To sponsor such a vow would be an indication of Jewish loyalty and fidelity to the Law. For example, Agrippa I sponsored vows for several young men in order to show his personal loyalty to the law (Josephus, Antiq. 19.294). Since the expenses for the vow itself could be high, wealthy men could show their support by paying the expenses for one or more men completing their vow. While it is possible Paul took this money from the collection he delivered to Jerusalem, that is not stated in the text. In any case, taking money intended for the poor in Jerusalem to sponsor the vow does not seem appropriate, the money ought to be come form Paul’s own pocket.
To what extent does Paul’s wealth effect the way he did ministry? Modern evangelism is often targeted on the “down and out,” people who on the fringes of society. This is very much like Jesus, and perhaps Peter in Act 9. Did Paul target wealthy, higher class people (ie., Roman citizens) because he was a wealthy Roman citizen?
I agree with the fact that being wealthy would have given Paul the convenience of smoother travel in the sense that it would allow him to move comfortably from one town to the next. However, I don’t agree with your assessment that Polhill feels that Paul had to “buy” his Roman Citizenship. Polhill states that the most common way for a person to obtain citizenship is for the whole city to be declared “free”. Though this “freedom” has its limits, Paul would have not been limited because he would have been born a Roman Citizen, which was the highest citizen status in Rome at the time (Polhill 16).
It just as probably (if not more say) that a grandparent or his parents were set free, either from performing some service to the government or that when Tarsus was freed by the rule of Antony (when Anthenodorus was appointed over the city) they became free as well (8).
It is at least plausible that Paul’s grandparents were in Jerusalem with Pompey took the city in 63 BC; they were captured and brought to Rome as slaves, and later either freed or his father was freed, thus obtaining citizenship. Impossible to prove, but it might account for the family interest in a Jerusalem education for Paul.
Polhill didn’t say Paul bought his citizenship, I think I edited a line out of the first paragraph that made it sound a bit that way. At least that is my “gap theory”
Yeah, when I read it, it was almost as if you were claiming that Polhill directly said that Paul bought his citizenship. Now, my post lost its meaning because now it makes no sense…I guess I’m going to have to write up a new one. Man, I was so proud of my response because I found an error…which turned out be a typo…
Well, back to the drawing board.
Although I do not know what the traveling expenses looked like exactly when Paul traveled, there are always going to be traveling expenses no matter what time period you live in. I can only imagine how many pairs of sandles he went through with how much walking he did!
Because Paul did not have to raise support for himself, he was able to travel more, visit more cities, and of course teach more. To be able to teach more has it’s obvious rewards. As Paul was able to teach more, more people learned of his message and accepted what he was teaching. I also think that if Paul had to raise his own support, he would have gotten bogged down by having to leave the “mission field.” I image that Paul was continually eager to share Christ, so having the freedom to travel was probably a blessing in his life. God also knew what Paul needed for his missionary journies and as He does today, He took care of Paul and provided everything that he would need to accomplish what God had laid out for Paul to do.
Oops messed up on my own name!
Although I do not know what the traveling expenses looked like exactly when Paul traveled, there are always traveling expenses no matter what time period you live in. I can only imagine how many pairs of sandles he went through with how much walking he did!
Because Paul did not have to raise support for himself, he was able to travel more, visit more cities, and of course teach more. To be able to teach more has it’s obvious rewards. As Paul was able to teach more, more people learned of his message and accepted what he was teaching. I also think that if Paul had to raise his own support, he would have gotten bogged down by having to leave the “mission field.” I image that Paul was continually eager to share Christ, so having the freedom to travel was probably a blessing in his life. God also knew what Paul needed for his missionary journies and as He does today, He took care of Paul and provided everything that he would need to accomplish what God had laid out for Paul to do.
Elyse – It is interesting that you sort of import modern missions ideas into your idea of how Paul got around (I do this to, BTW!) I think the phrase “raising support” and even “mission field” are modern constructions that we import back into Paul. I cannot think of any Jewish text that can be described as a support letter, although Philippians comes close. There Paul is thanking the church for a gift of money – which i assume supported him while he was in prison.
What is remarkable to me is that Paul is more often described as soliciting money from his churches in order to give it to the “home church” at Jerusalem. Imagine a missionary in Tanzania collecting money from villages to send to the poor Christians in America!
I do not know if Paul was rich but I think that at least his family had money. I think that Polhill stated that at least his family had some money. I do not know if his parents ended up giving him money or if he even excepted any money. Being a tent maker he would have had some money though. I think that he was not poor. He did not go around to a lot of churches asking them for money. Yes, some gave him money, but he did not say, I need money to survive. But he very well could have been very rich. But he did not live like it. He served God with his whole heart and gave up any kind of extravagant living that he could of had to serve God. I think that is what is important. Not if he had money, but how he did use what he had to serve God. Are we willing to do the same? Are we willing to give up our money to serve God?
mmmm…
I don’t see enough evidence one way or the other to form a strong opinion about Paul’s financial situation. My gut says he wasn’t wealthy, maybe just because if he had independent means it seems like it would have been a little lowdown to accept money from some of the churches he served, and also because – why work as a tentmaker and take time away from ministry, if he had other means?
Unfortunately, if I don’t see a basis for forming an opinion about Paul’s financial status, I’m also not going to have any but a highly speculative answer for P. Long’s question…which doesn’t seem very useful.
Why do you think Jesus and Peter were poor? Both owned a business and a home. Jesus himself could manifest and alter the atomic structure of matter to suit his needs. If he could have fish deliver money and change water into wine he could easily take a branch and turn it into gold coins.
Rich doesn’t even justify how wealthy jesus was.
Whether Peter, James and John had personal wealth prior to following Jesus is irrelevant for this post, since they left that behind when they followed Jesus. See Luke 18:28, for example. As for Jesus, in Matthew 8:20 he claims “the Son of Man does not have a place to lay his head.” The Jerusalem community in Acts seems to have followed Jesus in the voluntary life of poverty, see this post:
https://readingacts.com/2019/01/31/acts-432-516-a-christian-community/
I will assume your comments about Jesus conjuring up gold coins is trolling.