Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as a False Apostle
Is There A Thirteenth Apostle?
It is hard to imagine that Paul's thirteen letters never came to the attention of any of the twelve apostles. One would expect to find some testing by the apostles of Paul's claims to be an apostle.
Jesus in (Rev. 2:2) mentions a trial at Ephesus of persons who told the Ephesians they were apostles. The verdict found they were not true apostles. Jesus told the Ephesians:
I have known thy works, and thy labour, and thy endurance, and that thou art not able to bear evil ones, and that thou hast tried those saying themselves to be apostles and are not, and hast found them liars. (Rev. 2:2. YLT)
In Revelation, Jesus did not say the same thing to any of the other six churches whom He addressed. Jesus made this remark to the only church among the seven whom we know Paul visited: the church at Ephesus. And among the seven churches, it was only the church at Ephesus whom we know Paul told that he was an apostle. (Eph. 1:1). Paul wrote this church:
From Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. To God's people who live in Ephesus and are faithful followers of Christ
Jesus. ((Eph. 1:1) ASV.) not an apostle, thus bringing (Rev. 2:2) directly to bear on Paul?
Indeed, there is no evidence for Paul being an apostle, except from Paul's own mouth. As Segal mentions, in Acts "Luke makes no reference [to the twelve accepting Paul's
apostalate]." Of course, the four gospel accounts have no mention of Paul, and thus offer no basis to confirm Paul as an apostle.
It is also clear from Acts that the Apostles themselves understood their number was set at twelve, but that this did not include Paul. Long before (Rev. 2:2) was written, we know from Acts 1:21-26 that the twelfth apostle-Matthias- was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles' criteria for the replacement was that it had to be someone who was with the others from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Luke reveals therefore that the eleven had a criteria that would likewise exclude adding Paul as an apostle.
Then Jesus in the Book of Revelation reveals twelve is the number of apostles for all time. The verse of (Rev. 21:14) follows the mention of the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem. Each gate has a name of the twelve tribes of Israel on it. (Rev. 21:14) then says:
-
Some of the oldest surviving manuscripts omit explicit mention of Ephesus in verse 1. Metzger argues this was due to an earlier effort to universalize the letter. Metzger concludes it probably did originally mention Ephesus. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) at 265.)
-
Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert twelve foundation stones. On each of the stones was written the name of one of the Lamb's twelve apostles.
(Rev. 21:14 CEV.)
There is a clear correspondence of one apostle for each of the twelve tribes, gates, and foundation stones. The number each time is only twelve. It implies there are not supposed to be more than twelve apostles. You cannot have thirteen or fourteen apostles judging the twelve tribes. Jesus made this clear during His earthly ministry as well. Jesus said the role of the twelve apostles was to "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28.)
The apostles understood it the same way. When Judas fell away and was lost, they added Matthias to bring their number back to twelve. (Acts 1:22-26). When apostles were martyred later, such as Apostle James (the brother of John), mentioned in Acts 12:2, the apostles did not replace him. Had they done so, this would bring their number to thirteen in the resurrection ruling over the New Jerusalem. The apostles must have seen the mis-match which a thirteenth apostle would represent in fulfdling their role as twelve judges over the twelve tribes into eternity.
Alan Johnson in the Calvinist Expositor s Bible Commentator agrees the early church treated the offices of the twelve apostles as dying with them. They were not to be replaced. Their number of twelve was unique.
As to whether the authoritative function of apostles continued after the first century, the apostolic fathers are instructive. In no case do the many references to apostles in the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas relate to any recognized apostles other than those associated with the NT. The Fathers apparently understood the special apostolic function [on earth] to have
ceased with the end of the apostolic era. Never does Paul claim in Acts to be an apostle of Jesus. Never do the apostles describe Paul as an apostle. This has been recognized by all Pauline scholars. For example, John Crossan and Jonathan Reed, in their latest work of 2004:
[I]n all his letters, Paul sees himself as an apostle sent from God through Christ. 4 The very vocation for which Paul lives is denied him by Luke. He is, to be sure, an important missionary....But he is not an apostle equal to the
Twelve. 5
Furthermore, Crossan and Reed make the point that Luke's story of how Matthias replaced Judas excludes the possibility of a thirteenth apostle such as Paul. They write:
Luke insists in Acts 1 that, after Jesus' resurrection, there were still, always, and only 'the twelve apostles.'...For Luke, Paul is simply not
an apostle . 6 Without Matthias' explicit selection, one might have imagined that Luke's Paul was at least implicitly Judas' replacement as the twelfth apostle. With it, Luke implies that Paul was not an apostle and could never be one....[H]e could never be the one thing Paul always insisted that he was, namely, an apostle
-
Alan Johnson, "Revelation," Hebrews-Revelation in The Expositor's Bible Commentary' (Ed. F.E. Gaebelein)(Zondervan: 1981) Vol. 12 at 434.
-
See, e.g.,1Cor. 1:1; 2Cor. 1:1; (Gal. 1:1); 1 Ti. 1:1. See, viz., "Fori am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1Cor. 15:9, ASV) and "For I reckon that 1 am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2Cor. 11:5, ASV).
-
John Crossan and Jonathan Reed,//? Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome s Empire with God s Kingdom [Id., at 29.)
Thus, the only person to say Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ in the entire New Testament is Paul himself.
Yet, we know that Jesus said if He alone bore witness to Himself, then His witness would be untrue. (John 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.") Jesus was extending the Law's principle, so that two witnesses were necessary to establish not only a wrong, but also anything as important
n
as God sending someone for a special role. In fact, Jesus in (Rev. 2:2) clearly agrees a self-serving claim to be His
o
apostle is insufficient. Thus, Paul's claim to being an apostle thus suffers from being self-serving. By a Biblical standard from Jesus Himself, Paul's self-witness "is not true."
Thus, the identity of the person who said he was an apostle to the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:2) but who could not be an apostle is proven from the Bible itself. Honest Pauline scholars have conceded this underlying problem to Paul's validity. His claim to apostleship is uncorroborated and thus Jesus says Paul's claim "is not true." (John 5:31). As a result, it is obvious the person spoken of in (Rev. 2:2) is Paul because the New Testament gives us a record of:
- Luke does describe Paul and Barnabas as messengers from the church at Antioch. In Acts 14:4 and 14, the Greek word for messenger is used for them, apostoli. However, as the Christian historian Ben Witherington explains: "The use of the term apostoli in Acts 14:4 and 14 seems to indicate that Paul and Barnabas are being viewed as agents/apostles of the Antioch church (cf. 2Cor. 8:23), not apostles with a capital A." (Witherington, New Testament History (Baker Academic: 2001) at 229.) In fact, the context clearly shows Paul was merely a messenger (i apostoios ) of the church of Antioch. Paul was not one of the apostoli of Jesus. Even if Luke had called Paul an apostle of Jesus, Luke does not attribute such title as coming from the twelve apostles, or from Jesus in any vision that Paul relates. Thus, it would have been Luke's remark alone. Luke never claims he himself is a prophet. Nor even if he was a prophet, we still lack the second witness. Nevertheless, Luke's meaning was apostoli with a small a. one person told the Ephesians he was an apostle who was in fact not one of the twelve apostles (i.e., Paul).
-
A complete record of the twelve apostles in Acts excludes Paul.
-
In Acts, Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the twelve; and
-
In Acts, Paul never claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ and thus no record exists of an authoritative acceptance by the twelve of Paul as such an apostle.
-
Jesus was corroborated by God's Holy Spirit in the appearance of a Dove as well as the Father's voice from heaven. (Matt. 3:16-17). Paul lacks any corroboration on his claim. The theme of corroboration by two witnesses runs throughout the Bible. The Law said that no crime could be established by a single witness. (Deut. 19:15, "any crime or any wrong"). Jesus taught in event of a dispute over a wrong, obtain witnesses so by "the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established." (Mat 18:16). Why must this principle apply to wouldbe apostles? Because without two witnesses with competent knowledge, one's claim is entirely self-serving. If two witnesses were needed to prove a crime, how much more so to prove something far more important eternally such as one being an apostle. In this case, the Ephesians must have realized proof that someone was an apostle required more than the person's say-so that he was an apostle. Just as Jesus' witnesses were the voice of Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, Paul needed two witnesses. In this case, the only valid two witnesses would be Jesus on one side and/or the joint decision of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ on the other. The binding authority of the apostles required a joint decision, and not the solitary decision of a single apostle. This is precisely how Matthias was added as the twelfth. (See "Apostolic Decisions Were Binding In Heaven Only When Reached Jointly" on page 494.) However, such proof from either Jesus or the twelve is entirely lacking in the New Testament. Paul's supposed apostleship is never stated by Jesus 9
-
(Rev. 2:2) specifically says the persons on trial "said" they were apostles. Yet, such a self-serving statement did not suffice. Jesus says the claimants were appropriately found to be liars. Thus, Jesus' own words in (Rev. 2:2) agree that self-serving testimony cannot ever be the basis to treat someone as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
-
For background on Ephesus, see Ben Witherington, New Testament Histojy Map of the Roman province of Proconsular Asia
In Second Timothy, Paul talks of a trial he endured in a Christian congregation. Paul says he put up "his first defense" among them. However, Paul says "all forsook me." (2Tim. 4:14-17). In an exact parallel, Paul identifies in the same epistle that this trial took place in Asia-where Ephesus is the capital. Paul writes that all the Christians of Asia defected from him. What else other than a heresy trial at Asia's leading church of Ephesus can explain this action? In (2Tim. 1:15), Paul writes:
This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. (ASV)
Paulunists have no explanation of this verse except to deny Paul's words. Adam Clarke says Paul must be referring to Asiatic Christians at Rome. "He cannot be speaking of any general defection of the Asiatic Church...." However, Asia is primarily two major cities: Ephesus and Smyrna. It is not that hard to believe such a defection took place. We are not talking of a large area covering many major churches. Furthermore, Clarke has no explanation for denying Paul means what he says. It is self-evident Clarke is appealing to our respect for Paul. We cannot imagine Paul sinking so low.
Paul and Luke Mention A Heresy Trial of Paul at Ephesus
Thus, even Paul's own words that "all... in Asia turned away from me..." cannot convince those devoted to Paul that what Paul says is true.
However, contrary to Clarke's spin, Luke in Acts chapter 19 records the event leading to what Paul mentioned in (2Tim. 1:15) and 4:14-17. Luke records that the budding church of Ephesus decided at one point to have nothing further to do with Paul. In fact, Luke appears to be implying a heresy trial of Paul took place at Ephesus in Asia. Here is what Luke records in Acts 19:1, 8-9 (ASV):
(1)...Paul...came to Ephesus....(8) And he entered into the synagogue [at Ephesus], and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them [i.e., the Ephesians].
Thus, in Luke's account, Paul no longer went to the budding church at Ephesus where he had been "persuading" them for three months. While it appears the leadership favored Paul, he encountered opposition eventually from some influential members. 10 Clearly, this event would be a muted way that a friend like Luke would record a heresy trial.
10.It is hard to imagine after three months of Paul's preaching ("reasoning and persuading concerning the kingdom of God") that this assembly lacked a significant support for Jesus as Messiah. Paul apparently always preached correctly the Messianic prophecies in the Law and Prophets. (Acts 28:23 et seq.) Thus, there could have been a significant number among the leadership who accepted Jesus as Messiah. However, then Luke says "some were hardened" at the end of this three month period. It does not appear this came at the leadership level. Apparently something Paul said at the end of three months turned off influential members completely to Paul s version of the Way. Thus, it appears the leadership of the assembly had previously turned to Christ, but now influential members objected to Paul's preaching there, forcing a trial to resolve the issue. Thus, this synagogue qualifies to be seen as the assembly Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life: (9) yea, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead: (ASVj
Hence, Paul alludes to an affliction in Proconsular Asia-in which Ephesus was the leading city-which felt like an experience of a death-sentence. The fact Paul was not killed is proof he is speaking figuratively. A church heresy verdict in Asia would perfectly fit Paul's meaning. If Paul were the one Jesus has in mind in (Rev. 2:2) (i.e., someone tried as a false claimant to being an apostle), such a verdict would be like a sentence of death. It would be a crushing blow to Paul's evangelism.
Evidence of the Actual Verdict At Ephesus in The Writings ofTertullian in 207 A.D.
It appears in 207 A.D. that Tertullian in a work entitled Against Marcion memorializes the actual verdict 11 period universally rejected almost all uniquely Pauline doctrines. Instead, in that period, almost all doctrine belonged to
1 9
James' teachings.
This is never disputed by Paulunists. The first 'orthodox' postapostolic thinker who Paulunists ever cite as holding Pauline doctrines is Augustine from the late 300s A.D. He was the first and only early Christian voice to espouse predestination as taught by Paul. He also spoke of the gift of perseverance. Augustine was a leading Roman Catholic figure whose writings date to the Fourth Century.
However, there was someone prior to Augustine who held Pauline doctrines on grace and salvation: it was Marcion. He arose around 144 A.D. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed at page ix.)
"The writings of Tertullian...were often on the lips of Calvin and Luther."
David C. Noe, Ph.D., Cloud of Witnesses (2004) Bethel
Presbyterian Church (Va.)
11 .This is the period that antedates the rise of Roman Catholicism as we think of it today. While there was a bishop of Rome since apostolic times, there was no superiority of this bishop acknowledged by any others until after 325 A.D. Even after that point, this superiority was only recognized within the Roman Empire. Within its territory, the Roman government gave official sanction and exclusive legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church. For more background, see footnote 16.
12.See "Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.) Rejected Paul's Salvation Doctrine" on page 425. See "The Patristic Era Church Also Rejected Paul's Predestination Doctrine" on page 432. See "The Patristic Era Also Blasted Paul's Doctrine on Eating Idol Meat" on page 435. See "The Eastern Orthodox Church and Paul" on page 438. See also Paul or James' Church: Who Was The Most Successful Evangelist?,
Despite Marcion's core doctrines agreeing with Paul, the early church in that period pursued Marcion and his followers as heretics. The Marcionites clearly held Paul's doctrines of salvation by faith alone (i.e. without obedience) as the true gospel. (See page 49.) Marcion insisted the twelve apostles (and their gospel narratives) were wrong on the doctrine of grace. Marcion claimed their gospel narratives were for the era of Law. Marcion opted for a narrative of Jesus' life that reads a lot like Luke's gospel. However, it is missing the first three chapters of Luke and a few other passages. Based on Paul's letter to the Galatians, Marcion claimed the Law of Moses was abrogated. We do not have to obey the God of the 'Old Testament' but only the God of the New.
To counter this movement, the issue of Paul's validity had to be resolved. It is in this context that the well-respected Christian leader, Tertullian, stood up in 207 A.D. and wrote Against Marcion.