Paul: Prophet or Apostle? Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D. The book of Acts presents Paul as a prophet, but Paul claims that he is an apostle. History has upheld Pauls claim rather than that of Acts. Why is this? Are there really significant differences between what these two titles mean? Or, does Acts not really present Paul as a prophet? Do the Pauline letters, perhaps, not really claim the title of apostle for Paul? But, if both claims are truly as I have presented them, how does one mediate between the two? How does one decide whether Paul should be understood as a prophet or as an apostle? To uphold these two claims, this discussion first will turn to the portrayal of Paul in Acts, and then center on the perspective of the Pauline letters. Finally, I will suggest some reasons for the divergences between these two presentations of Paul, discuss the significant of these differences, and proffer a suggestion for deciding between these two claims.(1) THE PERSPECTIVE OF ACTS The author of Acts spends nearly half of the book describing the message and the feats of the missionary, Paul. Since the title of the work is the Acts of the Apostles, this implies that he considered Paul to be an apostle. Luke speaks much in the same way about Barnabas as he does about Paul, except that Barnabas never gives any speeches and we have no account of his call to be a missionary. Is Barnabas to be considered an apostle, too? Luke would seem to give that impression in Acts 14:4-6, 19 where, in two instances, he refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles. Does Luke really consider both men to be apostles? If Luke wanted to show that Paul and Barnabas were apostles, why would he repeat the criteria for apostleship at the beginning of his work (1:21f) when he knew that they could not meet those criteria? Or, why would he not explain to us that they could meet the criteria, rather than relating a story which proves that they cannot (ch. 8-9)? A compunction for relating historical facts is certainly not common enough throughout Luke-Acts to be the case here. There must be a reason why Paul and Barnabas are called apostles at those two, and only those two, times in the work. There are no other instances where Luke-Acts ascribes the title apostle to anyone outside of the Twelve.(2) If Paul and Barnabas are not apostles, what are they? There really seems to be only one place where Paul is given another title (13:1), and we cannot really be sure as to what that title is. Either Saul is one of the prophets or teachers at the Antioch church, or he is one of the men considered to be both prophet and teacher. From the story of the council of Jerusalem, we gather that two delegates were sent out with Paul and Barnabas - delegates who were themselves prophets (15:32) - but it is difficult to say whether this emphasis on themselves is to point out a similarity with Paul and Barnabas, or merely to emphasize the prophetic gift which confirmed the message of Paul to the Gentile churches. We do know that Paul and Barnabas taught and proclaimed the Good News, the Word of the Lord (15:35), and we can deduce that Paul was considered to be a preacher and teacher of Gods word. Does this qualify him as a prophet? Or is this a circumlocution for Paul and Barnabas being apostles? It seems that the best way to answer these questions of how Luke viewed Paul, the missionary, is to look at the way Luke has presented Paul throughout the book of Acts. Paul is introduced to us at the stoning of the first martyr, Stephen, where we are told that Saul entirely approved of the killing (8:1). The next word is that Saul worked for the destruction of the church (8:3). He rushed off to Damascus, breathing murderous threats against the disciples and hoping to arrest any followers of the Way that he could find. Now, would you believe a gospel that you heard from this sort of man? He does not seem a likely candidate for church missionary work. Yet, even amid all this, Saul is struck by a vision of great light and a voice calling his name; the heavenly voice belongs to Jesus, who sends Saul to the city where he will be told what he must do (9:6). The now blinded Saul is led to the city by his companions, who heard the heavenly voice but saw no one. The Lord appears to one of the disciples in Damascus in a vision to tell him to visit Saul and pray for the return of his sight; Saul has already had another vision in which he was told that Ananias would come. The message to Ananias was that this man is my chosen instrument (skeuos ekloges) to bear (bastasai) my name to the pagan nations and kings and the children of Israel (9:15). So the disciple went and paid his visit to Saul, praying for the return of his sight and that he be filled with the Holy Spirit, and immediately it was so. Saul was immediately baptized and then, having spent a few days with the disciples in Damascus, began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus was the son of God (9:18, 20). This first account of Pauls call to be a disciple emphasizes that he is called directly by Jesus, who appeared to him in the vision, and that this vision was unique to Paul - although his companions heard the voice from heaven speaking to Paul, they did not see the Lord. Like Isaiah, Paul had seen the Lord and yet lived, though he could see nothing else even with his eyes wide open. Only after the prayer of Ananias was Pauls sight renewed and he was filled with the Holy Spirit. That these two events are seen together points out the importance of the Holy Spirit for Pauls life from now on. He sees things in a totally different light, perceiving the world now through the Spirit which is given to him. No longer a persecutor of the disciples of the messiah, Paul becomes an advocate for the Lord. The words of the prophet Isaiah, Who so blind as my servant, so deaf as the messenger I send? (42:19), receive an interesting twist here. The one that is blind, yet has eyes, is made the witness, the chosen servant that all men may know the messiah of the Lord (cf. Is. 43:8-13).
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:02:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015