# Paul's "Eminent apostle" statements



## D. Paul (Dec 9, 2004)

*Paul\'s \"Eminent apostle\" statements*

2Corinth 11:5 Paul states: 
"For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." ASV

and in 2Corinth 12:11
"I am become foolish: ye compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing was I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I am nothing."

In one school of thought (inquire if you need) the teaching is this:
""For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" Now who was that? Peter. Paul says he's not a whit behind him."

and

"_I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me_: (you forced me. Why? Because of them constantly accusing him of not being a rightful apostle. Paul didn't have letters of commendations, he couldn't say, "Well, I ministered with Christ for 3 years like Peter could.") for I ought to have been commended of you: (was he? No, but he should have been. He was the one who brought them out of paganism, he was the one who brought them into the light of the Gospel of the Grace of God as found in I Corinthians 15:1-4. Now they are turning against him and *not even giving him credit for it*.) _for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing_.""

Now these comments:

"I've told you that the Holy Spirit, by inspiration, over and over *repeats things that need to be repeated, and here are two of them in two Chapters*. In Chapter 11 Paul says, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." and here in Chapter 12 it's repeated again as he says, "for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles. though I be nothing."

Neither context seems to bear this out, that Paul is speaking about The Apostles. Rather the reference is made to those who set themselves up as super-apostles. Am I correct?

As for Pauls qualifications, what is t be made of this statement?:
"Look at the qualifications. It had to be someone who had been a follower of Christ from John the Baptist through His ascension. Paul wouldn't have fit."

Are these truly the Apostolic credentials?

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by D. Paul]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 9, 2004)

Interesting question. 

What is a super-apostle? I take it to be those that think their minds are the Spirit's mind, taking their ordinations to the extreme of believing themselves to inspired by God to add to Scripture those things they themselves become convicted of in their thinking, instead of confining themselves to Christ's own teachings. The Apostles themselves were careful not to go beyond what Christ taught them, and what the Spirit was directly leading them to know, not by impulse; but these super-apostles had no such compunction, and readily enough impulsively said things such as Paul had to refute in his letters. 

I find it hard to think that Paul would put the Apostles up against each other, himself included; or that he would compare himself with the Apostles as if he or the Apostles were something in themselves. I would think he knew his office well enough to know that it did not consist of that. He calls himself a bondservant of Christ, and embassador. That means that he did not ever teach his own views where these were not warranted by Scripture. In other words, they were not views, they were truth borne from experience and knowledge in the gospel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 10, 2004)

D.P.
The answer to your first question is "yes" in that context, but Paul clearly says something to this effect with respect to the Twelve also in Galatians 2.

I count it very doubtful that any of the Twelve would have disparraged either Paul or his ministry in any form. Rather, Paul avers, they officially recognized his station (apostle) and mission (special unto the non-Jews) as Gal. 2:9 plainly states. Paul is _definitely_ an Apostle, with a capital "A".

That there were other people who were given or took to themselves the designation of "apostle" is also true. And not always from base motivations. E.g. in Acts 14:4 & 14 Paul and Barnabas are designated "apostles," terminology that hardly can be interpreted with respect to Barnabas in some kind of "symbiotic" recognition along with the "genuine apostle" Paul. No, here Barnabas is actualy designated as an apostle. An apostle is a "sent one." The key question to ask is, *who is the "sending" authority?* In this case, the sending authority was the church, specifically at Antioch (see Acts 13:3-4). Here, Paul is not only an Apostle, but also an apostle (small "a").

But clearly there were also those who got about in the burgeoning church who were known (either by self-designation or otherwise) as super-apostles. By what evidence we glean from Paul's letters, it appears that these men (so far from being a positive asset in the church) were actually detractors from the ministry of their "competition," most notably Paul. Paul was possibly the _perceived_ prototype of this kind of ministry, due to his extraordinary call and appointment. Whereas the Twelve for a long time seemed to have a geographically limited ministry (at Jerusalem), Paul's influence was clearly being spread much farther abroad. From a carnal vantage point it can be seen how an itinerant ministry could have been viewed as a means to establishing a "power base." Hence the rise of so called "super apostles," in distinction from the Twelve, and in perverse imitation of Paul's own ministry. From their carnal standpoint, Paul's legitimacy was no different from their own. He was competition of the worst kind for them, a successful pioneer. Therefore, they took aim at him with all the firepower they could muster--undermining, character assasination, etc. (see also Phil. 1:15).

It is not without meaning, then, that Paul mocks their "title" with great irony. He himself will not deign to name himself with anything so grandiose. Ha ha ha. "Super-apostle" indeed. Paul in contrast is the very picture of humility. He is nothing but what God elected him and called him to be, a true Apostle. He is neither ahead nor behind the other Apostles, the Twelve, and if not behind them, then certainly not behind these pretenders.

Paul had all the legitimate authority he needed:
1) He was personally called by Jesus himself to be an apostle ("as of one born out of due time" 1 Cor. 15:8).
2) He had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1).
3) Jesus personally taught him as a disciple (Gal. 1:1, 12, 17, 18) possibly for as much as three years (incidentally the same amount of time as the Twelve!).
4) Paul had the ability (given supernaturally by Christ, and not confered by any of the Twelve) to do "signs of the apostles" (2 Cor 12:12). This ability included the power (when authorized by the H.S.) to further bestow sign working gifts to other believers. However, the specific _power-to-confer_ sign gifts upon others apparently could not be transferred (see Act 8:18-23). This was a distinct privilege of a Jesus-sent Apostle.
5) Paul had visions of glory which he was not allowed to disclose (2 Cor. 12:4) as means of personal confirmation of his calling, not to mention a "thorn in the flesh."
If Paul wasn't an Apostle in the truest sense, then he was himself most deluded, as is virtually the whole church down through history who recognize him as such.

Lastly (your other question): what about the qualifications that the disciples settled on in Acts 1 to determine who should replace Judas? There we have a unique situation, and one in which (as Calvin puts it) there is an important Spirit-led action, taken publicly by the church, in a critical, early exercise of her authority. There was the combination of human wisdom guided and instructed by the Spirit himself, a very prototype of the true exercise of church authority. Their actions, then, are instructive, they are illuminating, but they are not definitive and limiting of the call of God. The addition of Paul's own call (see Acts 9) and his own various words give us a much fuller picture of the qualifications of a Christ-sent Apostle.
(See also this thread for Calvin at length on Matthias' election http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6390 )

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------

