There is still doubt among some Bible teachers about Apostle
status for Paul. He is, without doubt, one of the most influen-
tial persons in the Church today and in history. He is known to
have written 12-13 letters included in the canon of Scripture.
When you see the facts of his story, and the historic definition
of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one wonders what the controver-
sy is about. In my understanding the word Apostle means, "one
sent." If that were the only criteria, we would accept Paul as an
Apostle of Jesus Christ immediately. It is also required of one
to be sent personally, by the Lord Jesus and to have been seen
of the Lord Jesus Christ in person. Are there questions in any-
one's mind that the post incarnate revelation of Jesus to Paul,
round out his qualifications as an Apostle? Then, what is the
issue? Paul insisted on his Apostleship; recorded in Scripture
and did not back away at any time. I have yet to hear anyone of
these who refuse to accept that designation raise questions on
the Scripture he penned as being uninspired. In spite of this, I
have heard a Southern Baptist minister state that Paul was not
not an Apostle and was mistaken when he referred to himself
as such. I have problems with anyone calling himself a minister
of the gospel who takes issue with the plain teaching in the
Word of God. Do we not, as followers of Christ, believe God
the Son to be the ultimate author of Scripture? Do we believe
all Scripture to be Divinely inspired? Where is there room for
one to conclude that part of the record of Scripture is not accu-
rate and a mistake in the mind of the human instrument?
Paul's qualification as an Apostle is first recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles. (If Paul were not an Apostle, would he be the
central human figure in a book so entitled?) Acts 9:1-16 records
the first meeting of Saul of Tarsus and Christ. Every verse in the
narrative is a testimony to Paul's Apostle status. In verses 3-4 he
is blinded by a bright light and hears a voice. He obviously had
had sight of the post incarnate and glorified Savior that caused
his blindness. The men with Paul did not see the light as he did
and were spared blindness. They did, however; hear the voice.
In vs. 6 he is given instruction (sent) to go into the city of Damas
Did he not become an "apprentice" Apostle at that time, meeting
the requirements? Given his claim, the testimony and experience
with the Post Incarnate Christ and his having been sent then, and
on and further missions later, there should be no question in any
one's mind of his status as an Apostle.
Let's look as one other narrative shedding light on this question;
Early in the Acts of the Apostles, there is an incident that some
"scholars" seem to overlook or misinterpret. I have never heard
anyone address the problem created in Chapter 1 of the Acts of
the Apostles when the disciples, not yet called Apostles, selec-
ted one to replace Judas, in order to fulfill Scripture in Psalms.
(This reference is apparently to Psalms 109: 8-10 and following.)
There is no indication in Scripture that Peter (always impetuous)
was acting under Divine guidance when he decided they should
choose a successor to that fallen disciple. He "may" have been
in error or premature. It is significant that Matthias is not men-
tioned in Scripture after that one incident and we could in no
way compare him with the "Apostle" Paul. These remarks may
or may not convince anyone of the position I have taken. That is
not my motive. The reason for writing of the subject is to to cla-
rify in my mind, why I have, after much consideration am persua-
ded the Apostle Paul was the most erudite of all Apostles.
(On 11.17.12 I had opportunity to talk with a Bible Scholar who
shed light on this question and because of this, there is further
study required. He suggested there is room for the Apostle
Paul and Matthias to be designated Apostles. Therefore, there
will be further attention to the subject in the next few days. If
one who reads this has input, please do so. thanks, dp.)
Considering his story, Paul makes a much more likely Apostle
than one Matthias from which we have heard nothing since his
selection by a group of shaken disciples who were not as yet
embolden and enlightened by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. I
might be guilty of nit picking, except for this fact; with much
less serious consideration and study, men have said of Scripture;
"It contains error" in this instance. That, to me, is an heretical
position. We need fewer heretics today and more serious minded
students of God's Word. One other word on the subject; Nowhere
in Scripture is Matthias referenced as an Apostle and that one
incident, early in the Acts of the Apostles in any way suggests
the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ was in any part of his selection to
fill the place of Judas Iscariot. It was not until the next chapter of
Acts that the Spirit of Jesus Christ came, on the day of Pentecost
and baptized the twelve; note, it was Jesus Christ personally, who
hand-picked each of the original twelve. According to the book of
the Acts, He also hand picked Saul of Tarsus, later called Paul, as
Apostle.
donporter 10.15.12
It occurred to me just recently that there was a discrepancy in
one version of Scripture and other translations with regard to
II Timothy 3: 16. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness. (kjv)
The name of that translation is the American Standard, and
it reads, "All Scripture that is given by inspiration..."
That small change makes an eternal difference...
If you are able to shed light on this let me know by email at
jlrsbnch@msn.com thanks, donporter,sr 11.24.14, ed. 3.5.16
No comments:
Post a Comment