3.0 St.

Paul seen as an apostleship

In response to further opposition, 2 Corinthians 10-13 records Paul’s determined defense of his

apostleship and authority. Apparently, there were those who denied that he was truly an apostle. They

perhaps wished for a following of their own and thus set out to slander and criticize Paul (see

10:2,7,8,10).

Paul makes several valid points in order to establish his authority:

 10:14-15 The faith of those in Corinth and the existence of their congregation is clearly indicative of

Paul’s true apostleship (see Acts 18:1ff; 1 Corinthians 2:1ff; 4:15)

 11:7-9 He preached without charge (perhaps unlike his opponents) so as not to be a burden to them

(mentioned again with irony in 12:13)

 11:22-28 He boldly (yet reluctantly) describes his credentials (as compared to the claims of his

opponents) and enumerates his sufferings for the cause of Christ

 11:30-12:10 He boasts of weakness, the true characteristic of an apostle (again, as compared to the

bold claims of the false apostles); see 4:7-15; 5:11-12; 6:4-10; also 1 Corinthians 4:9-13; even the vision

itself was a display of weakness in that he gained nothing he could express (12:4); finally, he was even

given a “thorn in the flesh” to ensure his humility as a true servant of the Lord; in 12:11 he states that he

was compelled to boast because such was the manner of the “most eminent apostles” (false apostles;

some suggest they may be identified with the Gnostic false doctrine of superior knowledge)

 12:12 Paul says that the signs, wonders, and miracles of a true apostle were performed among them

(perhaps indicating credit that goes to God and the Holy Spirit rather than himself); see also Romans

15:18-19; Galatians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5 concerning such signs accompanying the

proclaimed word; the book of Acts records several miracles in connection to Paul (14:8-10; 15:12; 16:16-

18; 19:11-12; 20:7-12; 28:1-9)

that with such he intends to build them up, not tear them down; he has established numerous times his

sincere love for them and desire to give of himself for their benefit (12:15)

Despite his blatant defense given to the church in Corinth, Paul was actually very humble about his

former way life and subsequent conversion and apostleship. In 1 Corinthians 15:9 he wrote, “For I am the

least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

He went on to express his thankfulness in v10: “For by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace

toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God

with me.” He further exhibits his humility in 2 Corinthians 3:5: “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to

consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God.”

3.11 Peter Defends Paul’s Apostleship

Probably the greatest proof of Paul’s apostleship and authority is found in 2 Peter 3:15-16. There Peter

refers to Paul as “our beloved brother.” He states that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given him.”

Finally, Peter refers to (apparently) a collection of Paul’s letters and calls them “Scripture.” It is true that,

in the early church, the term “Scripture” was generally used to refer to that of the Old Testament.

But notice that Peter categorized the writings of Paul in the same class as “the rest of the Scriptures,” thus

giving a clear indication that Paul’s writings are indeed truthful and authoritative. (A collection of Paul’s

writings commonly known as the Pauline Corpus is dated as early as 2nd century.)

Jesus said, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). The

apostles would thus be divinely guided by the Holy Spirit in their teaching and writing. The apostle John

was inspired when he recorded those words of Jesus. Luke was inspired when he wrote the account of

Paul being called to be an apostle. Peter was inspired when he wrote that Paul’s writings were Scripture.

Thus, if Paul is not to be accepted as a true apostle and his writings as genuinely inspired, then several
3.2 Paul’s Call

The New Testament presents us with two main sources to know Paul better, namely the Book of

the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul. In the Book of Acts Luke devotes half of his book to Paul

and his apostolic voyages and shows how Paul was chosen for a specific mission: to evangelize in the

power of the Holy Spirit. Even if Acts is not the primary source to understand Paul's life and message,

having been written around the year 80 AD, it integrates well with what is found in the Pauline Corpus to

have a deeper knowledge of the Apostle. The primary source for Paul's life and message are his letters:

they witness to the radical change brought into his life after experiencing Christ, his urge to evangelize

and his pastoral concerns for the early Christian communities, many of which he founded himsel together

with his collaborators. The Letters are a treasure and can be considered as being an open dialogue of the

Apostle and his Churches; they offer us direct contact with Paul's personality, his different experiences,

his message and his innermost being.

Quotations from the New Testament are taken from: The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version,

Catholic Edition, Liturgical Press – Minnesota 1993.

The Apostle Paul is maybe the most well known figure in the history of the Church2. The aim of this talk

is to try and understand better the Apostle of the Nations in his apostolic life-journey, a journey that

leaves behind a deep-rooted Pharisee and discovers an Apostle, deeply committed to the Crucified and

Risen Christ and to the pressing need to evangelize and bring the Good News to the furthest ends of the

earth.

In the light of Paul's life and experience we may then ask ourselves: how can the Apostle of the Nations,

so inflamed by the Gospel, enlighten our own evangelizing enthusiasm and minisrty today?

1. “I am a Jew from Tarsus, in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city” (Acts 21: 39)3.

It is with these words that Paul gives his identity to the Roman Tribune on the steps of the Antonia

Fortress in Jerusalem. Paul was born between the year 5 and 10 AD. “ Circumcised on the eight day, a
member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a

Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the Church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Fil 3: 5-

6). Saul (Saul, Saulos, Paulus) was culturally formed according to the dictates of the Mishnah: at 5 he

began reading the Scriptures, at 10 the Mishnah, at 13 he was obliged to observe the commandments and

at 15 he was initiated to the reading and study of the Talmud. Besides Hebrew and Aramaic he was well-

versed in Greek to read the Septuagint and well-trained to be a tent-maker (1 Tes 2: 9; 2 Tes 3: 8; 1 Cor 4:

12; Acts 2 20: 34). At 16 he was sent to Jerusalem and studied for four years at the feet of great, wise and

moderate Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22: 3). He progressed immensely as a Pharisee, so much so that he took it

upon himself to defend Judaism from the early Christian threat: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia,

but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being

zealous for God, just as all of you are today. I persecuted this Way up to the point of death by binding

both men and women and putting them in prison... (Acts 22: 3-5; cfr: Gal 1, 13-14). Between his

formative years and Stephen's martyrdom (Acts 7: 54-60) we know nothing on Paul's life. The only two

considerations one can make is that Paul, notwithstanding his deep-rooted Judaism, apparently did not

marry; it is probable that Paul left Jerusalem before Jesus' public ministry and therefore he never met

Jesus before his experience on the road to Damascus.

2. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9: 5).

Paul's experience on the road to Damascus is the most important in his life (cfr: Acts 9: 1-19; 22: 4-16;

26: 12-18; Gal 1: 5-17). In his letters the Apostle never speaks directly about this experience but it

underlies all he writes and expresses. It was the experience that changed his life radically. It is not an

isolated experience in his life: God was always present in his existence and led him from his mother's

womb. The Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul speak about this experience in the light of the

Gospel. In Gal 1: 15-16 thee experience is firmly rooted in his apostolic vocation: “But when God who

had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me,

so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles”. The same is expressed in Acts: after Paul's vision of
the Christ, he receives a prophetic mandate to proclaim and witness to Jesus (Acts 26: 17-18) before the

Gentiles, kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9: 15). It is therefore the Gospel that transforms Paul and

changes him from a zealous Jew into an authentic Christian, a missionary and an apostle full of

enthusiasm, a prophetic witness of the Risen Lord. The change in Paul is radical: his communion with

Christ creates a qualitatively and radically new person: “Whoever is in Christ is a new creation, the old

order has passed away and the behold the new has come” (2 Cor 5: 17). Paul has been enlightened by the

Christ: “For it is God who said. 'Let light shine out of darkness', who has shone in our hearts to give the

light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:, 6). The Cross of Christ,

and not the Law of Moses anymore, became his boast (Gal 6: 14).

In his Damascus experience Paul sees the fullness of his existence in which “Christ Jesus has me his

own” (Phil 3: 12). God transforms Paul's existence and the meaning of his life: “Yet whatever gains I

had, I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 3

More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my

Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and regard them as rubbish, in order that I may

gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one

that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and

the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in death, if somehow

I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3: 7-11).

It is in the love for Christ that we acquire the key to understand this experience of Paul, an experience that

transformed him into a zealous apostle committed in love to the Crucified and Risen Savior and Lord.

3. “I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus” (Gal 1: 17).

After the life-changing experience on the road to the Damascus, it is very probable that Paul retreated to

the semi-desert region of Arabia. Saint Jerome writes that Paul retreated to this region to reflect and

deepen his calling and the tremendous experience on the road to Damascus. It was the moment in which
Paul could reflect on the Lord Jesus, grow in his relationship to the Risen Lord, and understand Jesus in

the light of the Hebrew Scriptures he knew so well. Paul also refers to this experience to enhance his

autonomy as an apostle.

Back in Damascus “he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying. 'He is the Son of God'” (Acts

9: 20). Paul's preaching caused an initial reaction: “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now

proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal 1: 23-24). Paul's life-changing experience and initial

apostolate enraged his fellow Jews, so much so that they decided to kill him. “But their plot became

known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; but his disciples

took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket ” (Acts 9:

23-25; cfr: 2 Cor 11:33).

Three years had passed since Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. We are around the years 37-39

AD when Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet Cephas and stay with him for 15 days. (Gal 1: 18; Acts 9: 26).

The biblical text does not say what the two apostles discussed: it is possible that Paul shared his

Damascus experience and his apostolic call whereas peter shared his witness of the the historical Jesus.

With this visit paul comes into direct contact with the one who was considered as being the head of the

Christian community (cfr: Acts 12: 1-20; Gal 2: 8-9) and the Mother-Church in Jerusalem. Paul was

greatly helped by Barnabas (Acts 9, 27), a probable disciple-companion under Rabbi Gamaliel.

In Jerusalem Paul spoke boldly in the name of the Lord; again he was threatened with death. “When the

believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus” (Acts 9: 30). Paul

used this relatively long period to preach the Gospel in the Roman Province of Syria and Cilicia (cfr: Gal

1, 21-24), a preaching that becomes an occasion for the the churches in Judea to glorify God.

Barnabas, sent to organise the Christian community in Antioch of Syria (Acts 11: 19-24), calls Paul to be

work with him. Their collaboration was to become the basis of a wider missionary project in Asia Minor

and the Mediterranean Basin.

Paul's missionary voyages are well documented in the Acts of the Apostles: the three voyages express

Paul's evangelizing urge that led him from Antioch in Syria to Cyprus, the cities of Asia Minor and

Greece, towards Rome and maybe also Spain. The missionary voyages were aided by the specific

political and cultural context of Greece, Asia Minor and the East of Paul's time: it was the time of an

expanding Hellenistic culture and Roman military might. Paul takes advantage of the the Pax Romana

and the fact that he could speak Greek well, having also a deep-rooted knowledge of the religious and

cultural milieu of his time. The facility in traveling on the Roman roads and seafaring, notwithstanding all

the practical difficulties, aided Paul in becoming the expression of the early Church's missionary zeal.

“I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish – hence my

eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the

power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the

righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith: as it is written, 'The one who is righteous will

live by faith'” (Rom 1: 14-17).

3.2 Paul's understanding of himself as an apostle

The New Testament presentation of “apostle” is ambiguous. 1 Luke’s definition in Acts 1:21-22,

for example, problematically excludes Paul as apostle in the same way as the Twelve were regarded as

such.113 When we turn our attention to Paul’s self-understanding, however, we cannot overlook his

insistence that he is an apostle.2 Four of the seven undisputed letters (Romans, First and Second

Corinthians, and Galatians) begin with Paul’s self-identification as apostle. Whatever we make of the

1
C. K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (London: Epworth, 1970), 71-3.
2
Paul’s “definition” of an apostle seems to be one who has seen the risen Lord Jesus and received a commission (1
Cor 9:1; 12:28; 15:3-10). See also Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to
Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 57 n. 11: “Paul never claims the title ‘prophet,’ though he
clearly sees himself in continuity with the biblical prophets and appears to exercise the gift of prophecy (inspired
speech). This is likely because he sees the title ‘prophet’ in the church as a reference to someone who speaks
inspired oracles but, unlike an ‘apostle,’ has not seen (or been commissioned by) the resurrected Lord as Paul, Peter,
and James have (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28 with 9:1-2 and 15:3-10). Acts, on the other hand, expresses Paul’s continuity with
the biblical prophets by repeatedly showing the similarity of his function and fate to theirs.”
authorship of the six disputed letters, this self-descriptor is firmly planted in the minds of the “Pauline”

authors; five of the six disputed letters (Colossians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus) also

begin with this title. Additionally, when Paul lists charisms to the Corinthians, he gives pride of place to

apostleship above prophecy (1 Cor 12:28). Much of the Corinthian correspondence–letters I consider to

be the best examples of Paul’s personality, ministry, and thought–deals not only with the responsibilities,

rights, and ministry of apostleship (cf. 1 Cor 3:5-4:20; 5:1-5; 9:1-27; 2 Cor 2:14-6:13; 10:1-13:30; cf. 1

Thess 2:7; Phlm 22), but also with the connection of the office to Christ (1 Cor 11:23; 12:12).

That Paul considered himself an apostle is beyond dispute; what we need to clarify is whether

prophet and apostle are mutually exclusive terms/titles. The appearance and frequency (79 times in the

New Testament as a whole, 68 of which are in Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters) of the word ἀπόστολος

(apostle) in the New Testament has tended to flatten the original valence of the term. Its importance in the

Christian tradition has resulted in the adoption of the word into our modern languages more or less

unaltered. This linguistic adoption, in conjunction with the use of the term within the Christian tradition

as a technical term for a specific office and ministry, has eroded our ability to hear its Greek etymology.

“Apostle,” therefore, brings to mind an entirely different set of cognates for us than it would have for

those who were more familiar with Greek and without the later historical specificity. This is especially

true of the earliest Christians, who were very familiar with the Septuagint (LXX),116 or Greek translation

of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The discourse on New Testament apostleship particularly for Paul and the twelve

disciples has attracted a great deal of scholarly debates. On at least twenty occasions, Paul

described himself as an apostle, often with the qualification that he was an apostle of Jesus

Christ. This claim to apostleship was very important because Christ ordained apostles to speak

with absolute authority to the church on his behalf. It is notable that Paul was not one of the

original apostles whom Jesus had chosen during his earthly ministry. Still, Paul claimed to be
Christ’s authoritative representative. Paul insisted that he had received an apostleship equal to

the original apostles. But how was this possible? Though Paul insisted on his apostleship his

opponents dismissed his apostleship prompting that he did not meet qualifications set for

apostleship though a number of scholars have stood to justify Paul’s apostleship. This paper shall

discuss controversies surrounding Paul’s apostleship in light of the qualifications set for

apostleship, Paul’s mission work, his encounter with Peter and the Damascus event which is a

central feature to Paul’s ministry in order to investigate whether Paul was an apostle of Christ or

not.

The term "apostle" according to Murphy comes from a Greek term, apostolos which

simply means, "a sent one." An apostle is a messenger, an ambassador. The idea is that of

representation thus an apostle is a personal representative for the one(s) who sent him. An

apostle comes in the place of, representing the interests of, and bringing a message from

someone else. In light of the apostleship office there are two categories of apostleship outlined

that is apostle of the church and apostle of Christ; however Paul claimed to be an apostle of

Christ. Murphy advances that, the gift of apostleship, however, refers to that carefully select

group of men who were the personal representatives of Jesus Christ Himself sent for a special

mission, but this gift of apostleship belonged only to a very few. An apostle of Christ was a

personal messenger of Jesus Christ, sent by the Lord Himself. He was one who represented the

interests of Jesus Christ to men [6].

According to Raymond Brown, in reference to both Galatians 1:13-17 and Acts 9:1-9,

Paul received a divine revelation in which he encountered Jesus and after which he stayed in

Damascus. Brown acknowledges that, the report leaves many issues unresolved considering that

Paul was once a persecutor of the church. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says he saw Jesus (also
15:8), but in none of the three accounts of the experience in Acts does that happen (yet cf 9:27)

even though he does see light. Did Luke rank this appearance from heaven on a lower level than

the risen Lord’s appearance on earth to the twelve? Brown notes that, for Paul, the appearance of

the risen Lord was a major factor in his being an apostle, but some have doubted that he was an

apostle in Luke’s estimation. [427]

According to Douglas et al, when the apostles awaited the outpouring of the spirit on the

day of Pentecost, Peter determined that a new apostle should replace Judas, and explained that

authoritative apostles of Christ had to meet three qualifications. Douglas et al notes that, an

apostle, it is assumed will be someone who had been a disciple of Jesus from the time of Jesus’

baptism to the ascension. Douglas adds that, an apostle was to be someone acquainted with the

whole course of the ministry and work of Jesus (Acts 1:21-22), and he must have specifically

witnessed the resurrection. It is also important to note that, in Acts 1:23-26, new apostles had to

be chosen for the office by the Lord himself.[49]

Looking at the mentioned qualifications, Paul himself directly claimed to have met these

qualifications. However Crossan argues that, Paul claimed to be an apostle by divine

intercession, (Galatians 1:1, 12) and to be an ordained apostle, (I Timothy 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:11).

However the question Crossan poses is, ordained by whom since he was not part of the twelve

disciples of Jesus who had been ordained by Christ himself [97] In this regard the fact that Paul

had not been ordained by Christ himself disqualifies him to be regarded as an apostle. Crossan

further argues that the twelve apostles are documented in scripture and there is no support for

Paul’s claim other than his own word in the epistles that he wrote mostly defending his

apostleship, and of the twenty two times he is called an apostle, only two come from Luke,

Paul’s traveling companion, and biographer, Acts 14:4, 14 [97]. In this regard one may argue
that, Paul’s apostleship has no one else who bears witness to it except for himself thus indicating

that, he was not considered as an apostle by his contemporaries, hence proffering every reason to

dismiss him as an apostle of Christ.  

The twelve apostles did not recognize Paul’s apostleship and referred to him as ‘brother’

as in the book of 2nd Peter.  The twelve apostles met the set qualifications for apostleship. They

were twelve in number, and all were witness to Jesus’ life, teachings, and resurrection; from the

beginning to the end, Acts 1:21-22.  Paul meets none of these qualifications. Crossan argues that,

Jesus verified the number twelve, Matthew 19:28, and verified it again, Revelation 21:14.  There

are no scriptural references for thirteen apostles.  Matthias replaced Judas, Acts 1:26. According

to Crossan, if Paul was an apostle that means one of the twelve was not an apostle and if so who

got demoted? [98] Considering this argument that, the twelve did not recognize Paul as an

apostle because he was not part of the twelve as what Jesus had confirmed can be argued to

regard him as not an apostle of Christ.

In Paul’s missionary work, where he established Christian communities the Judaizers

would come and rebuke his teaching stating that Paul could not be an apostle for he was a

persecutor of the church. According to Drane, the first thing the Judaizers had said was that, Paul

was not a proper apostle because he was not one of the original twelve nor had been accredited

by the original apostles in Jerusalem [284]. However Drane notes that, Paul’s response to this is

in Galatians 1:10-2:21, where he argues strongly that, he needed no authorization from Jerusalem

or anywhere else, since he himself had met the risen Christ on the Damascus road [284].

Fitzmyer indicates that, the experience that Paul had on the road to Damascus was the most

important element to his spiritual journey. Fitzmyer states that, Paul himself speaks of that

experience near Damascus as a revelation of the son accorded to him by the father (Gal 1:16). In
it he saw Jesus the Lord [49].Basing on Fitzmyer’s argument; one may argue that Paul was an

apostle of Christ by the virtue that, he witnessed the resurrected Jesus on the Damascus road thus

meeting the qualification set for apostleship.

Not only did Paul witness the resurrection of Jesus that made him qualify him to be an

apostle of Christ. According to Kummel, Galatians 1:11-18, Paul reported that immediately after

his conversion he spent three years in the Arabian wilderness. He mentioned the length of this

period to demonstrate that it roughly equaled the time which the other apostles had spent with

Jesus. During those years, Jesus himself taught the gospel to Paul, Gal 1:11-12, “the gospel I

preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man nor was I taught

it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ [209]. In this regard one can argue that,

Paul can be regarded as an apostle for he was in the desert three years being acquainted with the

gospel by Jesus himself.

According to Schnelle, justifying Paul’s apostleship proffers that, the justification is

embraced in the Damascus event which he places the date in the year 33CE. Schnelle advances

that Paul speaks of his Damascus event in 1 Corinthians 9:1and in this case Paul does this on his

own initiative. It is clearly the Corinthian dispute about his apostleship that forces him to do so.

Schnelle advances that, in terms of text pragmatics 1 Corinthian 9:1ff and 15:1ff must be read as

Paul’s defense of his own apostleship. However in Corinth Paul’s apostleship was also disputed

because Paul had never seen the Lord. In this instance Schnelle states that, it is not clear whether

Paul’s opponents referred to the earthly or resurrected Jesus [287]. In this regard one can argue

that Paul can be justified as an apostle since there was no demarcation between seeing Jesus as

resurrected or during his earthly ministry.

on the Damascus road experience. According to Crossan, the Damascus event is so important

that Luke records it three times for maximum emphasis (Acts 9:1-19, 22:3-21, 26:1-18). In the

triple accounts presented in Acts, Crossan proffers that, the accounts have some historical

problems. Firstly Crossan notes that, according to Acts, Paul is travelling to Damascus

empowered with authority from the high priest to arrest dissident Christian Jews and bring them

back to Jerusalem for punishment. But, whatever about high priestly power in Judea, it could

never have been exercised across Roman provincial borders as far away as Damascus [102].

Such a stand point proffers one to question the authenticity of the Lukean account of the

Damascus event which is central to Paul’s apostleship. Deducing from this argument one can

argue that this event never took place since no authority by the Chief Priests could be exercised

beyond the borders the Roman province. Regarding the event to have not taken place rightfully

dismisses Paul as an apostle for his apostleship is centered on the Damascus road event. Some

scholars even suggest that, the Damascus event is a theological construction not a historical

event.

The second problem Crossan indicates is that, in Luke’s triple version of the Damascus

he describes Paul as seeing a light and hearing a voice (9:3-4, 22:6-7, 26:13-14). According to

Acts, Paul does not see Jesus’ face but only hears Jesus’ voice though Paul himself insists that

his sight of the heavenly Jesus makes him equal in authority with the twelve apostles who saw

the earthly Jesus (1 Corinth 9:1) [103]. In the event that this event took place such an

inconsistence in the account given by Luke and Paul on the Damascus event poses one to

disqualify Paul’s claim to apostleship basing on the Lukean-Acts account which points out that
Paul did not see Jesus but only heard a voice yet seeing Jesus was a qualification for one to

become an apostle.

However Fitzmyer notes that, the only difference between the Damascus appearance of

the risen Christ and those to the official witnesses of the resurrection was that, Paul’s experience

occurred much later and to him as an individual [9]. In this regard one can argue that,

information on an individual’s experience is best acceptable from the individual who had the

experience. Considering that, the Damascus event is given by Paul himself rightfully gives it

credit to regard as an apostle. Fitzmyer also indicates that, the only difference in Paul’s account

of seeing the resurrected Christ and that of the twelve disciples was the difference in time phases

[9] hence there is no base for not accepting Paul’s Damascus account of the resurrected Christ. It

is also important to note that, both accounts of the resurrection from Paul’s side and the disciples

side are based on data not facts hence one cannot dismiss either any of the two accounts when it

comes to apostleship.

As mentioned earlier by Douglas et al that, when the apostles awaited the outpouring of

the spirit on the day of Pentecost, Peter determined that a new apostle should replace Judas, and

explained that authoritative apostles of Christ had to meet three qualifications. In this scenario,

some scholars have questioned who between Peter an apostle and Jesus the one who sent

apostles was supposed to explain the qualifications prompting that Paul was justified being an

apostle since he based on his encounter with Christ having been sent by Christ himself. Paul

understood very well that he did not need any accreditation from any man except Jesus himself.

Drane proffers that, Paul in defense of his apostleship in Galatians 1:10-2:21, he argues strongly

that he needed no authorization from Jerusalem or anywhere else, since he himself had met with
the risen Christ [284]. By such one can argue that Paul was making it clear that he was a

representative of Christ himself not of any man.

According to Albert Harrill justifying Paul’s apostleship advances that, Paul did not rest

his apostolic authority solely on claims of seeing the resurrected Christ, for that would have not

distinguished from other apostles of messiah Jesus such as Peter and James. Rather Paul asserted

that his authority over his congregation and success of his mission work was a higher and more

moral one than that which other Christian leaders and apostles had, the personal influence of his

deeds, which created the congregation in the first place. Harrill adds that, Paul thus routed his

leadership claims very specifically through his clout, which he attributed to God working

through him (1 Corinthians 15:10), “But by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace

toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary I have worked harder than any of them(the

other witnesses of the risen Lord), though it was not I but grace of God that is with me. Harrill

indicates that, the Christian communities established by Paul where a clear indicator that he was

an apostle of Christ, Harrill even further argues that, the beginning of Christianity was because

of Paul and one cannot follow Christ without following Paul [85]. Basing on Harrill’s arguments,

one can argue that Paul was an apostle for his work was greater than of the rest of the apostles.

The rebuke of Peter by Paul serves also as a justification for Paul’s apostleship. Drane

asserts that, subsequent events at Antioch had proved conclusively that Paul was in no way

inferior to Peter who was commonly reckoned to be the greatest of the apostles. When Peter had

broken off eating with Gentile Christians to pacify Jewish believers coming from Jerusalem, Paul

had no hesitation in opposing him “to his face” (Gal 2:11) and Paul implies (without evidence to

the contrary), Peter accepted the rebuke delivered to him on that occasion, thereby implicitly

recognizing Paul’s apostolic authority [284].

Peter 3:15-16. There Peter refers to Paul as "our beloved brother." He states that Paul wrote

"according to the wisdom given him." Williams advances that, here Peter apparently referred to a

collection of Paul's letters and calls them "Scripture." He notes that, it is true that, in the early

church, the term "Scripture" was generally used to refer to that of the Old Testament, Peter

categorized the writings of Paul in the same class as "the rest of the Scriptures," thus giving a

clear indication that Paul's writings are indeed truthful and authoritative.

With the above stated arguments, one can note that, Paul’s apostleship has a lot of

controversies surrounding it. It is notable that the qualifications set for apostleship by Peter, Paul

met them particularly in regard to the Damascus event. Among all the apostles Paul managed to

establish Christian communities which marked the beginning of Christianity hence he proved his

apostleship in work compared to some apostles who were part of the twelve disciples of Jesus.

Having considered all this, one can argue that Paul was an Apostle of Christ. However, it is

important to note that studies in Paul are still a continuous process.

LIST OF SOURCES

Brown, E.R, An Introduction To The New Testament, New York, Doubleday Dell Publishers,
1997

Crossan, D.J, In Search Of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s
Kingdom, Harper One, 2005

Drane J, Introducing The New Testament: 3rd Edition, England, Lion Hudson, 2010

Douglas, J.D, New Bible Dictionary, London, Tyndale Fellowship For Biblical Research,
1980

Fitzmyer, A.J, According To Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, New York, paulist
Press, 1992
Harrill, A, Paul The Apostle: His Life and Legacy in their Roman context, Cambridge
University Press, 2012

Kümmel, W G. Introduction to the New Testament. London: SCM. 1975

Murphy O’C, J. Paul: A critical life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996

Schenelle, U, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, New York, Baker Publishing Co., 2005

Williams, B, Paul’s Apostleship and Authority, International Journal for researches,

Mbofana, R.T, Is ZANU PF founded on fake liberation war credentials?, The Zimbabwean
Newspaper,15/08/2016,http://thezimbabwean.co/2016/08/is-zanu-pf-founded-on-fake liberation-
war-credentials/