Was Paul an Apostle?

[Blackmarch]

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.

Theres no good source that flat out proves he was that i'm aware of that proves he was, but there seems to be a lot of things suggesting it. So I'd wager that he was.

[Snow]

Paul saw the Lord and became a "witness of the resurrection" which is requirement that was needed when Matthias was chosen. There is a difference between having an apostolic witness and holding the priesthood office of Apostle. There are many members of the Church, both men and women, who have an apostolic witness of the Lord. Seventies have an apostolic calling, but they are not apostles.

Actually the requirement was that it was someone that was will Jesus the during his whole ministry... so that they might become a witness (to the resurrection)

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1 NIV)

I like your idea of an apostolic calling but he is not listed in any of the ancient lists of the Seventy (apostles).

[Snow]

If you understand that "the law" is speaking of the Law of Moses and not the Law or laws of Christ, (called Law of Faith in the New Testament) then it makes scriptures like this much easier to understand. So, when you read Romans 2 assume the Law of Moses when it says the law and it makes perfect sense what they are saying.

To me, it is saying that it is important for one to live the law they believe. Since these are Christians, they need to live the Law of Christ (faith), whether they be circumcised or not. Whether they live the Law of Moses is entirely up to the individual, but the Law of Moses can't save because it's a precursor to lead us to Christ and His law or Gospel, which is the law that saves. Many have taken it to mean works are not necessary since the works of the law were done away. But, a studious reading will show that it is referring to the law of Moses, and not commandments in general, especially Christ's commandments. Christ did give commandments, and they are to be followed if you claim to believe in Him

Romans and Galatians are the best two chapters in the Bible for dealing with the "Law of Moses" verse the "Law of Faith." Again, if you read the New Testament with the understanding that the law of works means the Law of Moses, and the law of faith means Christ's commandments and Gospel, it makes pefect sense. Take these scriptures for example in Romans and Galatians:

Thanks for the response,

Couple thoughts though.

The text itself specifically says that if you follow the law, you are cursed (Galatians 3:10 ), and that if you get circumcised the Christ is of no value to you and you lose God's grace (Gal 5: 2-6)

10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

[spamlds]

Snow, you misunderstood. I didn't infer that Paul was one of the Seventy. I was just making the distinction between having an "apostolic witness" and being an ordained Apostle.

I believe that seeing the Lord in vision, as did Joseph Smith, or as Paul did, qualifies as being a witness of the resurrection. My point was that we are blessed to have many apostolic witnesses in modern times and that they include ordained apostles--who hold the keys Christ gave to the ancient twelve apostles--as well as the Seventy, and lay members who are witnesses of the Lord's resurrection.

Don't try to interpret scripture too narrowly and miss the importance of modern oracles and witnesses of Christ's resurrection. Rejoice that there are those who are "eyewitnesses of his majesty" today.

[Justice]

Thanks for the response,

Couple thoughts though.

The text itself specifically says that if you follow the law, you are cursed (Galatians 3:10 ),

Not if you follow the law, but the curse is activated if you don't continue to keep the law, not just for being under the law. Look at the text closely. If you live by the law you are not cursed, only if you are under the law and don't live by it (which no one did). But, that's not to be confused with the law itself bringing the curse.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

and that if you get circumcised the Christ is of no value to you and you lose God's grace (Gal 5: 2-6)

Again, it's not saying if you are circumcised and then come to Christ He availeth you nothing, but if you are circumcised and don't come to Christ. You remain in the curse if you don't follow the law perfectly, which no one did. Christ redeemed them from the curse (of not keeping the law perfectly).

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

I'm not sure what version of the Bible you are quoting but it's foreign to me. To make sense of it I had to read the KJV. Personal preference, you know.

The yoke of bondage (in verse 1) is equal to having to keep the whole law in order to not come under the curse.

It really is as simple as reading it with the law = Law of Moses and faith = Law of Christ (Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Edited August 24, 2011 by Justice

[Vort]

The text itself specifically says that if you follow the law, you are cursed (Galatians 3:10 ), and that if you get circumcised the Christ is of no value to you and you lose God's grace (Gal 5: 2-6)

Obvious though it may be, it's worth mentioning that Paul's use of "circumcision" refers to the whole idea of the Abrahamic covenant, a token of which was circumcision, and in effect means "adopting Judaism". The actual removal of foreskin is irrelevant, as I am sure Paul would have agreed with. The point is that anyone who thinks people *need* to circumcise their infant sons does not understand the nature of Christ's covenants, in a manner not too dissimilar to Mormon's condemnation of those who insist on the baptism of little children.

[BenRaines]

Great thread. Welcome back Snow.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Snow, you misunderstood. I didn't infer that Paul was one of the Seventy. I was just making the distinction between having an "apostolic witness" and being an ordained Apostle.

Thanks for the correction.

[Snow]

Not if you follow the law, but the curse is activated if you don't continue to keep the law, not just for being under the law. Look at the text closely. If you live by the law you are not cursed, only if you are under the law and don't live by it (which no one did). But, that's not to be confused with the law itself bringing the curse....

Again, it's not saying if you are circumcised and then come to Christ He availeth you nothing, but if you are circumcised and don't come to Christ. You remain in the curse if you don't follow the law perfectly, which no one did. Christ redeemed them from the curse (of not keeping the law perfectly)....

I understand your point but Paul was definitely NOT making the point that salvation comes either from accepting Jesus's resurrection OR by following the Jewish law. Think how horrified he would be if you told him that was his position... look how upset he was at Peter

He was making the point that perfect behavior (adherence to the law) was impossible and so the only way to get into a right relationship with God was through Jesus Christ.

[Snow]

Obvious though it may be, it's worth mentioning that Paul's use of "circumcision" refers to the whole idea of the Abrahamic covenant, a token of which was circumcision, and in effect means "adopting Judaism". The actual removal of foreskin is irrelevant, as I am sure Paul would have agreed with. The point is that anyone who thinks people *need* to circumcise their infant sons does not understand the nature of Christ's covenants, in a manner not too dissimilar to Mormon's condemnation of those who insist on the baptism of little children.

I agree with your first point... circumcision doesn't just mean circumcision - it means converting to Judaism.

I think I disagree with your 2nd point... removing the foreskin was not irrelevant. It was absolutely essential to becoming Jewish. You couldn't be Jewish without it... though you would be correct that after Paul was called/converted and the council of Jerusalem approved of Gentiles accepting Christ without first becoming Jewish, and Christ was the only way to salvation, then circumcision and dietary restrictions and all that become irrelevant for everything, except becoming Jewish, which was, for Paul, wrong.

[Snow]

Great thread. Welcome back Snow.

Ben Raines

Hi Ben

Thank you.

I don't know if Paul was an "apostle" in the same way we today think of apostles, and I'm not sure what the significant of being one or not is.

... but I think it has some relevance to something... Paul claims he got his gospel directly from God, not from the Apostles, and then Paul preached his "received" gospel as the gospel truth. Today, of course, we do not believe that is how it works. New converts do not receive revelation for the Church.

I do not think Paul's theology and soteriology can be easily reconciled with Jesus's views - at least the views of Jesus as interpreted and reported by the anonymous authors of the Gospels and I wonder if Paul's role, actual or presumed, has anything to do with it,

[Justice]

I'm kind of moving along this line... I see some symbolism in these verses to "skin girded about their loins" to circumcision. I think other phrases near to or associated to it are also interesting. If you consider the state of innocence Adam and Eve were in while in the Garden of Eden, how they knew not their nakedness before God and each other, and then God covered them with a skin after they ate the forbidden fruit, some of the symbolism comes out if you consider circumcision "removes the skin." I believe these verses are worth study in relation to this topic, noting they are referring to the "uncircumcised:"

Alma 3:5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.

Alma 43:20 Now the army of Zerahemnah was not prepared with any such thing; they had only their swords and their cimeters, their bows and their arrows, their stones and their slings; and they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins; yea, all were naked, save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites;

3 Nephi 4:7 And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.

Enos 1:20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.

These stories are all types of other things and make for interesting reading if you can understand even part of the symbols.

[Vort]

I think I disagree with your 2nd point... removing the foreskin was not irrelevant. It was absolutely essential to becoming Jewish.

Let me try to rephrase my point:

Paul's beef was not with the actual procedure of circumcision. Rather, he disliked that converted Jews still wanted to circumcise their sons as a token of the covenant, when that covenant had been fulfilled and a new one established -- one that didn't require any genital cutting in token of it. Lack of circumcision seems to have been used as a de facto distinguishing fact between those who accepted Christ and those who clung to ancient Judaism, or perhaps didn't understand the Christian covenant.

I agree with your summary statement after the part I quoted above.

[KitCarson]

“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? … For the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 9:1–2.)

[Snow]

“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? … For the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 9:1–2.)

Paul clearly thought of himself as an apostle.

What is not known is:

1. What did Paul mean by "apostle?"

2. Was he ordained as an apostle by those in authority?

The NT clearly references people as apostles, that were not apostles as we understand them today.

[KitCarson]

The specifc role of an Apostle is "special witness of Jesus Christ", his divinity, death, and resurrection. Virtually every General Authority and President have said "Apostle Paul" in their talks (and published in church papers). I take this to mean that the Apostleship of Paul is not in doubt by church authorities. Paul clearly claimed it and if the church Presidents call him an Apostle, who are we to question the matter?

[Snow]

The specifc role of an Apostle is "special witness of Jesus Christ", his divinity, death, and resurrection. Virtually every General Authority and President have said "Apostle Paul" in their talks (and published in church papers). I take this to mean that the Apostleship of Paul is not in doubt by church authorities. Paul clearly claimed it and if the church Presidents call him an Apostle, who are we to question the matter?

I take the perspective of a historian. What someone may know by faith and is thus promulgated as dogma is not useful for a historian. History cannot get at what someone believes on faith or "supposedly" learns by supernatural means.

[dberrie2000]

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?

Acts14:14--"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,"

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.

The only qualification I see in Acts1:22-23 is that they be a witness of His resurrection, and Paul was certainly that:

Acts2:22-23--"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."