Paul’s apostleship

This continues my series on apostleship.

Paul’s apostleship is both similar and different to the twelve. On the one hand, he was adamant that although he had not been with Christ during his earthly ministry, his apostleship was as authoritative as the twelve. Paul had seen, and been commissioned by, the risen Christ (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:1, 11-24). Acts repeats Paul’s conversion three times, each time linking it with a divine commission to preach Christ (Acts 9:1-25; 22:3-21; 26:12-23). Paul’s own report of his divine commission is that God in Christ apostello him (Acts 22:21; 26:17; 1 Cor 1:17). Luke, Peter and Paul himself are at pains to demonstrate that Paul and the other apostles share a common, authoritative testimony to Christ (Acts 9:26-27; 1 Cor. 15:8-11; Gal. 2:6-9; 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul insists that the Holy Spirit authorises his written words as being God’s commands (1 Cor 14:37). Therefore, we must accept Paul’s testimony to Christ as equally authoritative as the twelve.

On the other hand, he is aware that his apostleship is different from theirs, in at least two aspects. Chronologically, they were apostles before him (Gal. 1:17). Secondly, his background was that of an opponent and persecutor (Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1-2; 22:3-5; 26:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:12-16). The twelve had been disciples – wayward, misunderstanding and unreliable, but disciples nonetheless. Hence Paul’s sense of being ‘abnormally born’ (1 Cor. 15:8).

Comments

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else. The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders, Ryan Burge of Washington University, posted some really interesting preliminary results on his Substack. 1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional. 2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it. Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us. Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...

Multicultural Ministry Matters

Search This Blog