Was Paul an Apostle?

[Snow]

I'm teaching Gospel Doctrine these days and have just started in on the Epistles last week... 1 Thessalonians. Paul, of course, wrote more letters than any other NT writer and is critical to both early Church growth and early Christian doctrine - or since we still have the NT today he is also critical to current Christian doctrine... which prompts the question: was he an apostle?

He claims to have been an apostle but 1: no one else in a position of authority at the time that I can think of, off hand, says so - including the known apostles; 2. when a replacement for Judas was made, a big deal was made of it but there is no such record about Paul; 3. The author of Luke-Acts may have called Paul an apostle but in Acts 1:22-23 they author states what he thinks are the qualifications for being an apostle and Paul doesn't meet them.

[HiJolly]

Haven't see you for a while -- hi there!

Yeah, but Acts has a lot of problems in terms of 'early church' perspective, anyway. So it's par for Luke/Acts to say there was a lot of structure, far after the fact.

Paul was Saul until God Himself appeared. Paul was not an apostle by Church ordination, he was ordained by the Man Himself. He "went direct"! Not a problem, since most of the Church organization didn't really gel until after Paul & Peter were both dead. Can you tell I've been reading a lot of NT scholars lately?

IMO. Good luck in GD class.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

I'm teaching Gospel Doctrine these days and have just started in on the Epistles last week... 1 Thessalonians. Paul, of course, wrote more letters than any other NT writer and is critical to both early Church growth and early Christian doctrine - or since we still have the NT today he is also critical to current Christian doctrine... which prompts the question: was he an apostle?

He claims to have been an apostle but 1: no one else in a position of authority at the time that I can think of, off hand, says so - including the known apostles; 2. when a replacement for Judas was made, a big deal was made of it but there is no such record about Paul; 3. The author of Luke-Acts may have called Paul an apostle but in Acts 1:22-23 they author states what he thinks are the qualifications for being an apostle and Paul doesn't meet them.

Interesting thought: it is my opinion that the role of Paul among the early saints was that of Apostle. With what we know from Latter-Day revelation; the letters of Paul to various "churches" should not be considered inspired or binding - let alone scripture unless he was in a position of authority and held priesthood keys.

The Traveler

[RipplecutBuddha]

While I cannot find specifically where or when, I believe Joseph Smith stated on several occasions that Paul was an Apostle, or at least referred to him as such when speaking of him.

Since I do recall Joseph giving a pretty detailed description of what Paul looked like, and how he sounded when he spoke, it seems (along with the revelations he recieved) He would have been pretty authoritative on the issue.

Now, what does this mean for the biblical record? That it is incomplete. While this isn't really a news flash for most LDS members, it is a fascinating debate to study strictly within the confines of the NT itself. There may be no record in the NT of Paul being recognized as an Apostle, but that's not the same as saying it was never recorded. It could have been recorded and simply lost to time.

[Guest mysticmorini]

[“An 'apostle' is an ordained leader in the Melchizedek Priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Apostles are chosen through inspiration by the President of the Church, sustained by the general membership of the Church, and ordained by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by the laying on of hands. . . . In addition to serving as witnesses of Jesus Christ to all the world (D&C 107:23), as Jesus' apostles did, members of the current Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold the keys of the priesthood--that is, the rights of presidency (D&C 107:35; cf. 124:128)” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59-60).

Of course the definition might need to be adjusted for a primitive church perspective but I would consider Paul an Apostle

[bytor2112]

Interesting thought: it is my opinion that the role of Paul among the early saints was that of Apostle. With what we know from Latter-Day revelation; the letters of Paul to various "churches" should not be considered inspired or binding - let alone scripture unless he was in a position of authority and held priesthood keys.

The Traveler

I have often wondered if "keys" and Priesthood authority was taught and understood as they are today. How far did the structure of the church extend in the early church. First Presidency? Were all of the ordinances necessary for exaltation available....sealing power, etc.

Or only a limited form of the Gospel and once the keys of Priesthood authority were restored then the additional light and knowledge necessary for exaltation was revealed for the Latter Day work to commence?

[Suzie]

Since I do recall Joseph giving a pretty detailed description of what Paul looked like, and how he sounded when he spoke, it seems (along with the revelations he recieved) He would have been pretty authoritative on the issue.

Let me tell you I think Joseph and Paul probably had a longgg discussion about it after Joseph said that Paul was a shorty, had a whining voice and a big nose.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Let me tell you I think Joseph and Paul probably had a longgg discussion about it after Joseph said that Paul was a shorty, had a whining voice and a big nose.

..........stupid no laugh button.......

[volgadon]

While I cannot find specifically where or when, I believe Joseph Smith stated on several occasions that Paul was an Apostle, or at least referred to him as such when speaking of him.

Since I do recall Joseph giving a pretty detailed description of what Paul looked like, and how he sounded when he spoke, it seems (along with the revelations he recieved) He would have been pretty authoritative on the issue.

Now, what does this mean for the biblical record? That it is incomplete. While this isn't really a news flash for most LDS members, it is a fascinating debate to study strictly within the confines of the NT itself. There may be no record in the NT of Paul being recognized as an Apostle, but that's not the same as saying it was never recorded. It could have been recorded and simply lost to time.

Before we get carried away, this description can be found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which was available in Joseph's day. Joseph also doesn't describe it as knowledge from a vision, so he could just have easily have taken an ancient, supposedly eye-witness source at its word.

[Just_A_Guy]

Paul referred to himself as an apostle in the openings of his epistles to the Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus. In 2 Peter 3:15, Peter refers to "our beloved brother" Paul and goes on to approvingly mention some unspecified Pauline epistles.

It seems a reasonable inference that Peter would not have recalled Paul so fondly had he believed Paul to be usurping the title of "Apostle".

[Suzie]

Before we get carried away, this description can be found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which was available in Joseph's day. Joseph also doesn't describe it as knowledge from a vision, so he could just have easily have taken an ancient, supposedly eye-witness source at its word.

Do we know that as fact? (that his knowledge didn't come from a vision?) The reason I ask is because even though I have no doubt that Joseph indeed had access and possibly read the Acts of Paul and Thecla, this source seems to have fewer descriptions on Paul (or let's say more general) than the one of Joseph. In the Thecla Paul is described just as short but Smith described him with an approximate height and all. Even the nose description is different. For me, the description Joseph makes of Paul (including hair color, complexion, etc) gives me the impression that he saw him at some point.

[Snow]

Haven't see you for a while -- hi there!

Yeah, but Acts has a lot of problems in terms of 'early church' perspective, anyway. So it's par for Luke/Acts to say there was a lot of structure, far after the fact.

Paul was Saul until God Himself appeared. Paul was not an apostle by Church ordination, he was ordained by the Man Himself. He "went direct"! Not a problem, since most of the Church organization didn't really gel until after Paul & Peter were both dead. Can you tell I've been reading a lot of NT scholars lately?

IMO. Good luck in GD class.

HiJolly

Actually Saul was always Paul - Saul being the Hebrew name, Paul being Greek.

Agreed that Acts has problems. Whenever Acts talks about Paul and Paul, in his letters, talks about Paul, Paul and Acts usually disagree. Even Acts is not consistent within itself... for example, Acts narrates the account of Paul's conversion/calling more than once and the accounts contradict each other.

[Snow]

Interesting thought: it is my opinion that the role of Paul among the early saints was that of Apostle. With what we know from Latter-Day revelation; the letters of Paul to various "churches" should not be considered inspired or binding - let alone scripture unless he was in a position of authority and held priesthood keys.

The Traveler

The majority of the New Testament was not written by apostles.

[Snow]

While I cannot find specifically where or when, I believe Joseph Smith stated on several occasions that Paul was an Apostle, or at least referred to him as such when speaking of him.

Since I do recall Joseph giving a pretty detailed description of what Paul looked like, and how he sounded when he spoke, it seems (along with the revelations he recieved) He would have been pretty authoritative on the issue.

Now, what does this mean for the biblical record? That it is incomplete. While this isn't really a news flash for most LDS members, it is a fascinating debate to study strictly within the confines of the NT itself. There may be no record in the NT of Paul being recognized as an Apostle, but that's not the same as saying it was never recorded. It could have been recorded and simply lost to time.

Couple thoughts:

1. When teaching the NT, my approach is to read it from it's own context - that is I try not to interpret it in light of 20th (or 19th century) context or dogma.

2. Acts makes a big deal of about the calling of Matthias into the 12. If Paul were one of the 12, one would think Acts would do the same for him.

[Snow]

Of course the definition might need to be adjusted for a primitive church perspective but I would consider Paul an Apostle

The NT seems to use the title "apostle" in two ways..'

1. A member of the 12.

2. A messenger, such as Junia (a woman and foremost among the apostles), Silas, or Timothy or even Paul.

[Snow]

I have often wondered if "keys" and Priesthood authority was taught and understood as they are today. How far did the structure of the church extend in the early church. First Presidency? Were all of the ordinances necessary for exaltation available....sealing power, etc.

Or only a limited form of the Gospel and once the keys of Priesthood authority were restored then the additional light and knowledge necessary for exaltation was revealed for the Latter Day work to commence?

Interesting point.

Paul (but not the author of Luke-Acts) claims that he did not receive the Gospel from the apostles - he says it got it straight from God (Christ)... however, if that is so, why doesn't Paul appear to understand the Plan of Salvation?

[Vort]

Actually Saul was always Paul - Saul being the Hebrew name, Paul being Greek.

My understanding is that "Paul" (or Paulus, or Paulos) was the Roman (not Greek) family nomen, or perhaps cognomen, and that Saul was his personal Jewish given name, or prænomen. (Here is a Wikipedia article on Roman naming conventions.) Among the Jews, he went by his given Jewish name; but among the Gentiles, where he spent most of his missionary efforts, he identified himself by his Roman family name. Or so I have been told.

[Snow]

Paul referred to himself as an apostle in the openings of his epistles to the Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus. In 2 Peter 3:15, Peter refers to "our beloved brother" Paul and goes on to approvingly mention some unspecified Pauline epistles.

It seems a reasonable inference that Peter would not have recalled Paul so fondly had he believed Paul to be usurping the title of "Apostle".

Well... scholars hold that the author of 2 Peter is unknown, having been written long after Peter's death and by a different author than that of 1 Peter.

Paul himself thought poorly of Peter, condemning him angrily and calling him a hypocrite while the two were in Antioch together. Paul lost that battle and left persona non grata never to return.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do we have extrabiblical sources for that, or are you relying on Galatians 5?

[Vort]

Paul himself thought poorly of Peter, condemning him angrily and calling him a hypocrite while the two were in Antioch together. Paul lost that battle and left persona non grata never to return.

My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. (D&C 64:8)

I assume the Lord can only have been referring to exactly such things as you bring up. Pity to remember the great ancient apostles for such ignominy.

[Snow]

My understanding is that "Paul" (or Paulus, or Paulos) was the Roman (not Greek) family nomen, or perhaps cognomen, and that Saul was his personal Jewish given name, or prænomen. (Here is a Wikipedia article on Roman naming conventions.) Among the Jews, he went by his given Jewish name; but among the Gentiles, where he spent most of his missionary efforts, he identified himself by his Roman family name. Or so I have been told.

I think you are right that Paul was his Roman name but the lingua franca of the majority of the Roman Empire was Greek. In Greek Paulos means something like "little fellow." Saul transliterated into Greek would be something like "the sultry walk of a prostitute" - no wonder he went by "Paul" when among the Gentiles. I am going by memory (that Paul was the Greek name) based off a lecture by a NT scholar I listened to two weeks ago but I found this link to another Greek and NT scholar that agrees:

Pauline Theology: Saul a.k.a. Paul

[Snow]

Do we have extrabiblical sources for that, or are you relying on Galatians 5?

There aren't any extra biblical sources; I am referring to Galations 2:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV)

[Snow]

My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. (D&C 64:8)

I assume the Lord can only have been referring to exactly such things as you bring up. Pity to remember the great ancient apostles for such ignominy.

Good citation... it certainly happened in the early days of the restoration as well, but whether or not it is a pity to remember it - it is canonized scripture, against which all else is measured.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Snow
added text

[RipplecutBuddha]

Couple thoughts:

1. When teaching the NT, my approach is to read it from it's own context - that is I try not to interpret it in light of 20th (or 19th century) context or dogma.

2. Acts makes a big deal of about the calling of Matthias into the 12. If Paul were one of the 12, one would think Acts would do the same for him.

1. So modern revelation bearing upon NT issues is not trustworthy? The purpose of ongoing revelation is to clarify and build upon previous revelations/doctrines. I understand the effort of teaching the NT strictly from the NT, however a great deal of what we know about the NT comes from...outside the NT...such as The Acts of Paul and Thelca, NT scholars and the knowledge they have, the Dead Sea scrolls, ect.

2. a) The fact of Matthias' calling into the 12 being in Acts doesn't mean every new apostle has to have their calling process in scripture.

b) How do we know Paul's acceptance into the 12 wasn't recorded somewhere else that has been lost to time?

c) Why would scriptural documentation even be necessary on Paul's authority when (sorry to bring up 19th & 20th century context or dogma) We have repeated confirmation of his apostleship from the living apostles and prophets today? Not to mention the fact that his writings are in the NT to begin with...

You might as well try to determine how Judas Iscariot 'really' died....strictly from the NT...

While I understand the premise of teaching the NT from its own context, it's somewhat disingenuous. The NT has supporting scriptures in the OT as well as the BoM, D&C, and PoGP that are included in the NT manual for the Gospel Doctrine class. You can't really isolate it from all other scripture and get the entire message it contains.

[Vort]

You might as well try to determine how Judas Iscariot 'really' died....strictly from the NT...

He hanged himself, as is testified in two places. Is there some dispute about this?