Was Paul a false apostle?
There is a movement of people who claim that Paul's writings aren't scripture, and they even can go so far as to claim he's an antichrist figure. I believe this is one of the avoidable pitfalls when people start to question the authority of the Word of God, which if it were comprised of books written by false teachers would not only compromise the gospel, but would undermine the credibility of the entirety of the scriptures. The writers throughout reference each others' teachings and so by breaking one link in the chain many or all of the other links are called into question. Three links found in this case are Peter, Luke, and Ananias.
I've spoken with one such person recently and he said Paul was an antichrist. Well, here are the verses used to simply disprove this whole argument:
If Paul was an antichrist, why would Peter call him a beloved brother? If Paul's epistles are invalid, why would Peter say the unlearned wrest them to their own destruction? Why not the learned if they were false?
Another claim they might make is that Paul wasn't even an apostle, which they would argue invalidates a gospel that doesn't include works. Other citations can be made to counter this but I'll post just three here:
As far as Paul not being an apostle--I'll say that I can see some of the points they're making (if one doesn't believe all of scripture), but that, as with other things in scripture, a careful reading and some discernment can overcome that claim. Assuming Luke penned the book of Acts, he certainly claimed that Paul was an apostle:
Then they may say he couldn't have been an apostle because he didn't see Jesus Christ after the resurrection, as Peter believed that was a qualification (and perhaps it is):
Well, whether Paul saw Jesus post-resurrection is disputable (if you don't believe all of the Bible), but here are some verses claiming he did that were recorded by Luke and Paul:
At which point they may say there were no witnesses to this, but there were:
And those witnesses lead him to Ananias, who allowed him to see again:
And Luke believed Ananias to be devout, which meant it wasn't a reasonable claim that he's a liar:
And if Ananias and Luke were telling the truth, then Jesus Himself validated Paul:
So back to the larger question of apostleship. There's a theory that I think isn't unreasonable that Matthias was not appointed as an apostle by God, as those that oppose Paul may claim. That instead the appointment was Paul. I heard this argument from Kent Hovind and it goes like this. Do you ever decide you need to do something and come to two choices, and then ask God to help you choose between those two choices? If you believe God has you choose one of them, then you act on that choice believing it has His blessing, but did God initially lead you in this direction to end up at those two choices? No, that was your doing, and then perhaps you tempted God by using some arbitrary measurement to discern His will (I've been guilty of this), but instead are believing a lie. I think this may have happened with the apostles' appointment of Matthias:
Note two things: how the scripture doesn't record God making this appointment at this time, but it was the apostles doing this of their own accord, and that Matthias isn't heard of in the scriptures again past this point.
And who initially appointed the apostles? Jesus Christ:
And did the apostles sometimes make mistakes? Yes:
So, all considered, I believe Jesus Christ appointed Paul as the twelth apostle in due time:
Once Paul's credibility is established in the eyes of those who doubt it, we certainly have no shortage of examples where Paul believed he was an apostle:
And from Paul we benefit from the clearest understanding of the gospel there is, at least in my opinion. To those who would have him removed from the Bible so they can wrest a gospel of works-salvation out of the scripture, I quote this:
I've spoken with one such person recently and he said Paul was an antichrist. Well, here are the verses used to simply disprove this whole argument:
- And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
If Paul was an antichrist, why would Peter call him a beloved brother? If Paul's epistles are invalid, why would Peter say the unlearned wrest them to their own destruction? Why not the learned if they were false?
Another claim they might make is that Paul wasn't even an apostle, which they would argue invalidates a gospel that doesn't include works. Other citations can be made to counter this but I'll post just three here:
- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
- He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)
- Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
As far as Paul not being an apostle--I'll say that I can see some of the points they're making (if one doesn't believe all of scripture), but that, as with other things in scripture, a careful reading and some discernment can overcome that claim. Assuming Luke penned the book of Acts, he certainly claimed that Paul was an apostle:
- As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2)
- [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, (Acts 14:14)
Then they may say he couldn't have been an apostle because he didn't see Jesus Christ after the resurrection, as Peter believed that was a qualification (and perhaps it is):
- 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. (Acts 1:22)
Well, whether Paul saw Jesus post-resurrection is disputable (if you don't believe all of the Bible), but here are some verses claiming he did that were recorded by Luke and Paul:
- And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 9:3-4)
- And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 22:6-7)
- ¶ 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? (1 Corinthians 9:1)
- And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:4-9)
At which point they may say there were no witnesses to this, but there were:
- And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)
- And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)
And those witnesses lead him to Ananias, who allowed him to see again:
- And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt [there], Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. (Acts 22:10-15)
And Luke believed Ananias to be devout, which meant it wasn't a reasonable claim that he's a liar:
- And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt [there], (Acts 22:12)
And if Ananias and Luke were telling the truth, then Jesus Himself validated Paul:
- ¶ And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. (Acts 9:10-16)
So back to the larger question of apostleship. There's a theory that I think isn't unreasonable that Matthias was not appointed as an apostle by God, as those that oppose Paul may claim. That instead the appointment was Paul. I heard this argument from Kent Hovind and it goes like this. Do you ever decide you need to do something and come to two choices, and then ask God to help you choose between those two choices? If you believe God has you choose one of them, then you act on that choice believing it has His blessing, but did God initially lead you in this direction to end up at those two choices? No, that was your doing, and then perhaps you tempted God by using some arbitrary measurement to discern His will (I've been guilty of this), but instead are believing a lie. I think this may have happened with the apostles' appointment of Matthias:
- ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 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. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)
Note two things: how the scripture doesn't record God making this appointment at this time, but it was the apostles doing this of their own accord, and that Matthias isn't heard of in the scriptures again past this point.
And who initially appointed the apostles? Jesus Christ:
- And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; (Luke 6:13)
- ¶ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (Galatians 1:1)
And did the apostles sometimes make mistakes? Yes:
- ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)
- And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also [one] of his disciples? He denied [it], and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being [his] kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (John 18:25-27)
- ¶ When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6)
So, all considered, I believe Jesus Christ appointed Paul as the twelth apostle in due time:
- And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. (Acts 22:21)
Once Paul's credibility is established in the eyes of those who doubt it, we certainly have no shortage of examples where Paul believed he was an apostle:
- ¶ Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Romans 1:1)
- For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Romans 11:13)
- Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (Galatians 1:17)
- ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope; (1 Timothy 1:1)
- ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, (2 Timothy 1:1)
And from Paul we benefit from the clearest understanding of the gospel there is, at least in my opinion. To those who would have him removed from the Bible so they can wrest a gospel of works-salvation out of the scripture, I quote this:
- ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)