We’ve been exploring the evidence for John 19:34 as an allusion to Eve’s creation from the side of Adam (Genesis 2:21-22).  While the parallels between the two passages are suggestive, a great deal of supporting evidence is found in the allusions seamless connection to John’s core message and themes.  In my last post we showed how it fits John’s theme of new creation.  We now turn to look how it pertains to the topic of new birth.

The New Birth

The new birth is a essential theme in the Gospel of John.  As with the theme of new creation, the new birth fittingly illustrates John’s emphasis on life and the new beginnings.  In fact Andrew Koestenberg, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters deals with the new birth under the the theme of new creation.  But since this series is specifically about Jesus giving birth, I thought it important to deal with it in more depth here.  The concept of new birth comes up at least four times in John’s gospel.

John’s Prologue (1:11-13):  John mentions the new birth first in his 18 verse prologue. John 1:11-13 states,

He (Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

According to John, the whole point of Jesus coming was to give those who received him the power to become children of God by being specifically born of God.  This statement is underscored by its central position within it’s surrounding context. John 1:1-18 is a chiasm, an ancient symmetrical pattern which pivots around and ultimately points to a central core.  According to Alan Culpepper and other New Testament scholars, this statement about the new birth is its core.  As such it should be seen as a complementary purpose statement to John’s Gospel.  Whereas John 20:30-31 states,

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Born Again (John 3:3-6): The new birth next appears in Jesus night time conversation with the aged Pharasee, Nicodimus.  Jesus tells him outright, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.  But Nicodimus is confused.  “How can a man can be born when he is old”, he asks.  “Can he entered his mothers womb a second time?”  Nicodimus has clearly stumbled of Jesus use of the word again, the Greek word anothen.  Jesus clarifies his statement, this is not a second human birth but a birth from above, from the Spirit of God.  But unless a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.  Anothen, is ambiguous.  It can mean a “second time” but it also can mean “from above.”  Jesus doesn’t mean for Nicodims to repeat his first birth but rather to experience a entirely new birth “from above.”   Jesus clarifies his statement this when he says  If you want to see the kingdom of God you must be born of water and the Holy Spirit.

Great.  We know what the Holy Spirit means but exactly what does John mean by water.

To Come out of a Man’s Side

Looking at Genesis 2:21-22 it certainly feels like the first birth in the bible.  There’s the suggestion of a twist in the fact that a woman is coming out of man instead of the other way around.  Would the original readers of the Bible have seen it this way?  J. Bergman Kline notes in this Journal of Evangelical Theological Society article that to come out of a man’s body is a typical idiom in the Old Testament for a man’s children and decedents.   Look at the following expressions.

• “The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of your body (Hebrew: בֶּטֶן Greek: ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς κοιλίας σου) will I set upon your throne.” (Psalms 132:11)
• “I will set up your seed after you, which will come out of your inner most being (Hebrew: אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ Greek: ὃς ἔσται ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου) (2 Samuel 7:12)
• ‘your son who will come out of your loins (Hebrew: הַיֹּצֵא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ Greek: ὁ ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν πλευρῶν σου) (1 Kings 8:19)

While they’re just verbal expression, it does appear to suggest that these people saw men has having a counter part to the woman’s birth.  This is further seen in the range of meaning of the Hebrew and Greek expressions which are somewhat obscured by English.  For instance the word loins in Hebrew (חָלָץ) is not exclusive to men.  It’s also the seat of pain as in a woman’s travail.  Nor is womb only possessed by women.  The Hebrew (בֶּטֶן) and Greek (κοιλίας) has the broader meaning of belly, abdomen and body, both possesssed by women and men.  Note that Jesus uses this same Greek word in John 7:37-39 in speaking about his belly as the source of living water,

“If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his κοιλίας will flow rivers of living water.’”

This is not to say that the Biblical writers saw no differences between men and women.  They did.  Its to say that they saw these differences as more complementary and parallel then we perhaps this today.

There’s also a further range of meaning which needs to be noted.  While in Hebrew 1 Kings 8:19 says ‘your son who will come out of your loins (Hebrew: הַיֹּצֵא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ), the LXX translators, who transcribed the Hebrew Bible into Greek just before the time of Christ felt perfectly comfortable rendering this as ὁ ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν πλευρῶν σου, “the one who comes forth from your sides.” Loins in Hebrew (חָלָץ) in the time of Christ is synonymous with the Greek word for sides (πλευρῶν)

1 Kings 8:19 and John 19:34 are the only verse in the Bible which contain the verb ἐξέρχομαι (to come out) and πλευρά (side).

The range of meaning of the Hebrew and Greek is very suggestive.  For instance of these words in the Hebrew and Greek is even more suggestive then they first might appear in our English translations.  For instance, the Hebrew and Greek for belly is the same word used for womb.  And loins is simply a synonym for womb (2 Samuel 16:11).  And this same word can also be translated as side in Greek.

And to this list we could add still one more.  The scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek some 200 years before the time of Christ thought that these expressions were parallel with saying coming from a man’s side.  In the Hebrew, 1 Kings 8:19 reads “my son, which came forth of my bowels.”  But LXX translators felt that

(which in Hebrew (בֶּטֶן) and Greek (κοιλίας) is the same word for womb).

of the The LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament done approximately 200 years before the time of Christ, has an interesting translation of the And a further parallel can be deduced from these idioms.

Compare 2 Samuel 16:11 and 1 Kings 8:19)

come out of a man’s side  

The creation of Eve from the side of Adam, should thus be seen as the first birth to occur in scripture.  Just as the initiating seed comes forth from the man to begin the birth process so to the woman initially proceeded from the man.

While these idioms are used in many places in the Old Testament, the quotes above are specifically in reference to God’s promise to David that his descendant will be established on the throne and will build the Temple.  Kline notes that “1 Kings 8:19 and John 19:34 are the only verses in the Bible which contain the verb ἐξέρχομαι and the noun πλευρά.

The woman cannot give birth without the initial seed of the man.  That’s why it was quite natural for the Hebrews to think that the first woman must have also first proceeded from a man.

The LXX of 1 Kings 8:19 shows that the phrase, “the one who comes forth from the belly,” can be equivalent to “the one who comes forth from the sides” as can be seen from the fact that each may refer to a son.  This possible interchangeability between belly (  ) and side (pluera) suggests a close relationship between Jesus’ statement that ‘he who believes in me… rivers of living water will flow from his belly (  ) and John’s statement that “immediately blood and water came out” from the pierced “side” (pluera) of Jesus (19:34).

John’s theme of new birth and that of new creation are connected.  Both are ultimately about new beginnings. In fact Andrew Koestenberg, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters deals with the new birth under the the theme of new creation.  But since this series is specifically about Jesus giving birth, I thought it important to deal with it in more depth on its own.

The concept of birth comes up a number of times in the gospel of John.  It first appears at the beginning of John’s gospel. John 1:11-13,

He (Jesus) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

The fact that this is at the beginning of the gospel is significant but its more significant the central pivot around which John’s eighteen verse prologue hinges.  John 1:1-18 is structured as a chiasm, an ancient symmetrical pattern which pivots around and ultimately points to a central core.  A Chaism, according to David Dorsey,

generally features two sets of units, in which the units of  the second set match in reverse order the units of the first set:  a-b-c // c’-b’-a’.  There is often an unmatched central unit linking  the two matching sets: a-b-c-b’-a’ (some-times called “uneven  chiasmus”).  An example of a simple chiasmus from English literature  is Pope’s line” “a wit with dunces, and a dunce with wits.”

John 1:12 and 13 is that core. John it seems is stressing the theme of new birth from God from the start.

The theme of new birth again appears in Jesus night time conversation with the aged Pharasee, Nicodimus.  The theme is underscored in Nicodimus’ misunderstanding of Jesus.

The pattern of misunderstanding is charachterized by the following elements: (1) Jesus makes a statement, (2) it is misunderstood and (3) he or the narrator in turn must decipher the meaning of what has been said.  The pattern itself suggests its function.

In his book the Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, R. Alan Culpepper notes that the misunderstandings blatantly instruct readers on how they should read the gospel.

The misunderstandings call  attention to the gospel’s metaphors, double-entendres, and  plurisignations as well as guide the reader by interpreting some of  these and ruling out the literal, material, worldly, or general  meanings of such references.  Readers are therefore oriented to the  level on which the gospel’s language is to be understood and warned  that failure to understand identifies them with the characterization  of the Jews and the others who cannot interpret the gospel’s language  correctly.”

Which leads Jesus to significantly rephrase the meaning again.  The greek word that Jesus uses for again, anothen, is a bit ambigious.  It can mean, as Nicodimus interprets it, a second time.  But it also can mean “from above.”

It appears in Jesus night time conversation with Nicodimus.  It appears in opening the eyes of the man born blind and the raising of Lazarus.  It also is becomes a metaphor for the experience of joy after suffering in Jesus upper room discourse.

The new birth is certainly central to John.  Can we see the flow of blood and water as a new birth?

Evangelicals love the term “born again.”  It fittingly descibes our experience of salvation.  But we miss something significant if we think it only refers to a personal experience of salvation.  In the Gospel of John it’s part of larger theme which helps to reveal John 19:34 as the moment Jesus himself gave birth.

The term “born again” comes from John 3 and Jesus important night time conversation with the aged Pharasee, Nicodimus.  Jesus says, if any man would enter the kingdom he must born again.  But Nicodimus is confused.  How can a man can be born when he is old, he asks.  Can he entered his mothers womb a second time?  But the Greek word Jesus used for again, anothen, is ambiguous.  It can mean a “second time” but it also can mean “from above.”  Jesus doesn’t mean for Nicodims to repeat his first birth but rather to experience a entirely new birth “from above.”   Jesus clarifies his statement this when he says  If you want to see the kingdom of God you must be born of water and the Holy Spirit.

Great.  We know what the Holy Spirit means but exactly what does John mean by water.

John 3, though significant, isn’t the first or the last time new birth appears in the gospel of John.  It appears first in John’s eighteen verse prologue.  In 1:12 and 13 he say,

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

And its not just the beginning of the gospel.  John 1:12 and 13 forms the pivotal center of John’s prologue (John 1:1-18).  Alan Culpepper has noted that John 1:1-18 is structured as a chiasm, an ancient parallel pattern which pivots around and ultimately points to a central core.  And here John 12 and 13 forms the core.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

John makes the new birth the central theme of his gospel.

John summarizing statement at the end of his gospel merely rephrases this theme.  “these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing you may have life in his name.”  The birth or new life is again central here as well.

You must have new life.  You must be born again.

But how?

The only thing we know thus far is that it comes from God and is not a natural birth and it relates in some sense to water and the Holy Spirit.

But the imagery of birth comes up again in John 16.

20 Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. 21 When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.

Here Jesus compares the sorrow of the disciples with the sorrow of a woman in labor.  The analogy indicates that the disciples are the ones who are in the agony of labor.  but afterwards they will experience the joy of Jesus as new mother experiences the joy of her new baby. Jesus in his death and resurrection is the one who is being born again.

But the metaphor is strangely suggestive of Jesus’ own suffering.  The disciples and their pain does not bring about the birth (i.e resurrection) of Jesus.  But Jesus suffering will bring about there new birth (John 1 and 3). Perhaps Jesus didn’t want us to take the analogy that far.

Or perhaps He wanted us to take it further.

The birth imagery reminds us of the John 1 and John 3 where God and the Holy Spirit are the active agents in the new birth.  And certainly Jesus is likewise an agent in the new birth.  The metaphor of labor pains can also be suggestive of Jesus’ own pain, the pain he will experience in his suffering on the cross.  While it’s true the disciples will experience emotional pain, Jesus will quit literally experience the agony of physical suffering just as the woman in labor.

The point of the John’s gospel is the new birth and the climax of John’s gospel is the cross and resurrection.  And here in John 16 we find an analogy which is suggestive of those two ideas together.  Labor and the cross as the means to new birth.

So is possible that Jesus and John are suggesting that the crucifixion is in fact that moment Jesus gave birth.

Does Jesus give birth in the crucifixion?  Where does he give birth in the crucifixion?

Christians throughout the ages have see in John 19:34, the piercing of Christ’s side and subsequent flow of blood and water, an allusion to Eve’s creation (Genesis 2:21-22).  The only male birth to appear in the scriptures.

In the Old Testament we also find idioms in which ‘what comes out from one’s side’ refers to offspring.  The following expressions refer to children or descendants:

• (1) “that which comes from the loins”
• (2) “the fruit of the belly/womb” ;
• (3) “the descendants of the belly” ; and
• (4) one will come forth from your inward parts.”

The LXX of 1 Kings 8:19 shows that the phrase, “the one who comes forth from the belly,” can be equivalent to “the one who comes forth from the sides” as can be seen from the fact that each may refer to a son.  This possible interchangeability between belly (  ) and side (pluera) suggests a close relationship between Jesus’ statement that ‘he who believes in me… rivers of living water will flow from his belly (  ) and John’s statement that “immediately blood and water came out” from the pierced “side” (pluera) of Jesus (19:34).

Many details of the crucifixion are unique to John.  But the one he offers as by far the most important is the piercing of Jesus’ side and the flow of blood and water.

It’s clear from the eyewitness testimony that follows (19:35) John perceives in them a unique importance.

He who saw it has borne witness – his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth – that you also may believe.

Three times he swears to the event.  And his conclusion, “that you also may believe,” foreshadows the very conclusion of John.

But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ…

So striking is this witness its has been called, “the most solemn protestation of accuracy to be found in the whole work.”  No where does John make a more passionate and personal claim.

But the flow is also extremely significant because it forms a climax to John’s frequent symbolic and metaphorical depictions of water.  Among those numerous depictions is Jesus’ reference to a birth of water in John 3:5.

Among the many things that John does with this verse, it uses it to depict the New Birth of God’s people.  The early Church saw in the piercing of Jesus’ side and the flow of blood and water an allusion to the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:21-22).  As early as the second century we find it said

If Adam was a figure of Christ, the sleep of Adam was the death of Christ who was to fall asleep in death; that in the injury of His side might be figured the Church, the true mother of the living.

far from being a crazy interpretation this allusion appears in all likelihood to be intended by John himself.   We can see in quotes of the church fathers the following points of similarity.

1. In the Old Testament we also find idioms in which ‘what comes out from one’s side’ refers to offspring.  The following expressions refer to children or descendants: (1) “that which comes from the loins”; (2) “the fruit of the belly/womb” ; (3) “the descendants of the belly” ; and (4) one will come forth from your inward parts.”  The LXX of 1 Kings 8:19 shows that the phrase, “the one who comes forth from the belly,” can be equivalent to “the one who comes forth from the sides” as can be seen from the fact that each may refer to a son.  This possible interchangeability between belly (  ) and side (pluera) suggests a close relationship between Jesus’ statement that ‘he who believes in me… rivers of living water will flow from his belly (  ) and John’s statement that “immediately blood and water came out” from the pierced “side” (pluera) of Jesus (19:34).

1. New Creation
2. Marriage
3. Oneness

How Can I Be Born Again?  The Answer from John’s Gospel is the Death of Christ. In the labor pains of his death he has given birth to those born of water and the Spirit.

And that’s where all explicit references to birth imagery end.  But it’s not where the imagery itself ends.

We should note that the metaphor of a labor pains can also be suggestive of Jesus’ own pain,  the pain he will experience in his suffering on the cross.  While its true the disciples will experience emotional pain, it is perhaps even more true of Jesus who will quit literally experience the agony of physical suffering.

This is where the direct references to the new birth end.  But this metaphor suggests we take a closer look at the cross in John and it’s unique climactic moment.

John underscores the theme of the new birth by placing it at the pivotal center of his 18 verse, introduction (1:1-18).  http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3399184  John’s prologue is chjasms. We’re not familiar with chaisms today but John and his readers certainly were.      A Chaism is form of parallelism.  Many psalms are built around a simple A, B, A, B C, pattern.  Chiasms structure there parallelism around a central core.  A, B, C, D, C, B, A.

Paul’s collection for the church in Jerusalem takes up a significant portion of his letters (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8:1–9:15; Rom 15:14–32).  For instance he writes in 1 Corinthians 16,

Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.

And here also in Romans 15

I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there.For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.

The offering is very important to Paul.  And we can see just how important by noting how it would cost him.

(1) Paul faced certain persecution in taking this collection to Jersualem.  In his letter to Romans he asks them to pray that he “may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people… (Romans 15:30-31).”  And on his journey he’s warned by the prophet Agabus about the imprisonment that awaits him in Jerusalem.  But still Paul is undetered.  In Acts 24:17, he says that the offering was the reason he had come to Jerusalem.   “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.”

(2) Paul invites suspicion among his followers.  Paul has specific instructions about who should be responsible for the money and its not him.  In 1 Corinthians 16:4, “I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.  If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.”  And again in 2 Corinthains 8:16-21

Thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same concern I have for you. For Titus not only welcomed our appeal, but he is coming to you with much enthusiasm and on his own initiative. And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel. What is more, he was chosen by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering, which we administer in order to honor the Lord himself and to show our eagerness to help. We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.

Pauls request for such escorts points to his awareness of some who might suspect him of being a con man, gathering followers simply to skip town with their life savings.

(3) Paul expends precious resources outside his mission field.  Paul tells us that he brought this offering for the poor in Jerusalem (Romans 15) because there was a need (2 Corinthians Certainly there is need in Jerusalem.  But there’s also needs that surrond his churches in Greece and Asia Minor.  Giving money to poor Jewish Christians some 800 miles away is clearly diverting it from furthering his local Gentile mission.

It seems that Corinthians may have been thinking twice about it.  Paul has to do a bit psycolgoical arm twisitng to get them to fulfill their pledge.  In 2 Corinthians 9:1-5 he says,

There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but that you may be ready, as I said you would be. For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to say anything about you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given.

Apparently the Corinthians have a bit slow in putting up the funds and Paul has to tell them that they better put of the money or their going to lose face.

So why did Paul think this offering necessary?  What compelled Paul to raise these funds for the poor in Jerusalem?  And what application might it have for us today?

Certainly the poverty of the Jerusalem church played a part.  Paul says the contribution was “for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.”  And the offering showed their “eagerness to help.”

We’re not saying that it was any great wonder for Paul to face persecution.  He did so on a number of occasions.   course we know that Paul was willing to face opposition in many different instances.  2 Corinthians tells us of all the things he was willing to suffer.  But Paul was always willing to suffer for his larger mission.  I have a hard time believing that he was willing to collect and deliver this offering because of felt need in Jerusalem.  The Gospel was behind it somewhere.  I don’t think the poverty of the Jersualem believers represents the whole story.  There’s more to find in the letters of Paul if we tune our ears to it.

Paul sees his mission to the Gentiles as a ministry to Israel (Romans 11:12-15).  Israel played a special role in the plan of God.  God promised Abraham that in his seed all the nations (Gentiles) of the world would be blessed (Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:15).  And Isaiah likewise prophesied

In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established  as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills,  and all nations (Gentiles) will stream to it. (Isaiah 2:2)

I believe Paul’s sees his ministry and particularly this Gentile offering as the first fruits of these promises.  It’s the culmination of Paul’s mission.  Through this offering the Gentiles are journeying to Jerusalem with him to worship the God of Israel.  In doing so they are offering themselves as proof to the Jews that Jesus is the one Christians claim him to be.

We find origins and impetus for this offering in Paul’s letter to the Galations.  Paul describes it as bridge between his Gentile ministry and Peter, James and John’s ministry to the Jews.  But to see this we need to understand the context in which the mention of this offering first appears.

Paul wrote Galatians to defend against Jewish Christians who taught that Gentile believers in Jesus needed to follow the traditions of the Jews. Paul is resolute in his hostility to such a doctrine, eternally condemning any who preach a message other than the one he delivered to them (Galatians 1:8-9). To give context to his opposition, Paul recounts his own history; his former zeal for these traditions, his conversion and his subsequent relationship with the Jerusalem church who are presumably the source of the conflict.

Paul claims initailly to have been extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers, alluding to God’s commendation of Phineius who killed an Israelite man in the very act of fornicating with a Gentile woman (Numbers 25:1-8).  But a revelation of Jesus and Paul’s call to the Gentiles changes all that.  Without consulting anyone (once again presumably leaders in Jerusalem), Paul journeys to Arabia (2:17) and possibly even Mt. Sinai (4:25).  Its only three years later that Paul briefly meets some of the apostles, Peter and James, in Jerusalem.  In all this Paul stresses that his message came from God and not from any man.

14 years pass before Paul feels compelled to consult with these leaders in Jerusalem again.  Paul presents the message he preaches among the Gentiles privately to them in the hope that they will see it from his point of view. Peter and James agree that they should go to the Jews and Paul should continue his outreach among the Gentiles.  The one thing they ask is that he “continue to remember the poor.”

This last phrase, “continue to remember the poor,” appears to refer specifically to the poor in Jerusalem. Paul gives ample evidence to a serious tension that existed between Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and his ministry among the Gentiles.  That this meeting and agreement occurred “in private” likewise suggests that Peter and James felt apprehensive in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship.  A financial offering from Paul and his Gentile converts would certainly help to smooth out any difficulty that might develop among the believers in Jerusalem.

There are also other reasons to see this phrase as a reference to the poor in Jerusalem.

1. James and Peter’s request that Paul “continue to remember the poor” indicates that this something Paul is already doing. If Galatians is written prior to the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), than this meeting occurred when Paul delivered aid from the church in Antioch to the famine starved church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30).
2. Paul claims his offering for the Jersualem church is for “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 16:26).
3. His audience would presumably understand the shorthand reference since they themselves had been instructed about Paul’s collection (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).

Paul’s commitment to the poor in Jerusalem does not originate with Peter and James. It’s an idea which appears to be fundamental to his understanding of his ministry among the Gentiles.  This can been seen in his letter to the Romans.

Scholars are apt to point out that Paul wrote to the Romans to prepare for a further missionary trip to spain (Romans 15:23-24).  But what we often overlook is that Paul’s occasion for writing is more immediately connected with his journey to Jerusalem where he  will finally deliver this gentile offering. (Romans 15:26-32).  And it apparently weighs heavily on his mind (Romans 15:31).

Read in this light, the theme of Jew and Gentile makes a great deal more sense. Romans is a meditation on Paul’s gospel and what he hopes to achieve through his ministry to the gentiles.  In Romans 11:13-14 Paul states

I am talking to you Gentiles.  Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the  Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow  arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

It appears highly likely that Paul saw this arousal as coming from the prophetic fulfillment of a later day worship of God among the Gentiles.