Pauline Literature

Miguel G. Echevarría and Benjamin P. Laird 40 Questions about The Apostle Paul

Echevarría, Miguel G. and Benjamin P. Laird 40 Questions about The Apostle Paul. 40 Questions and Answers Series. Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2023. 319 pp. Pb; $24.99. Link to Kregel Academic

Miguel Echevarría is associate Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. His 2014 SBTS Ph.D. dissertation was published as The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Pickwick, 2019). In addition to several journal articles, his Engaging the New Testament is due from Baker in 2024. Benjamin Laird is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University and author of The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation (Hendrickson 2022) and Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy and the Authority of the New Testament (IVP Academic, 2023).40 Questions about the Apostle PaulIn this new volume of Kregel Academic’s 40 Questions series, Echevarría and Laird answer frequently asked questions about the Apostle Paul. As they say in the introduction, it is possible to write “100 Questions about the Apostle Paul” and still not cover every related subject to Paul’s life in teaching. They divide the book into three parts: first, questions about Paul’s life; second, questions about Paul’s writings; and third, questions about Paul’s theology.

Questions in the first part summarize what little we can know about pre-Christian Paul. They speculate a little bit about his father as a potential possible pharisee and his relation to Sergius Paulus. Was Paul married? Did he have both a secular and Jewish education? Did he have any post-conversion education? They also discuss potential motives for Paul’s persecution of the early church. Echevarría and Laird only briefly discuss Paul’s conversion and do not touch on the possibility Paul was not so much converted from Judaism to Christianity than called to a prophetic office (the “light to the Gentiles”) as sometimes suggested by the New Perspective on Paul or Paul within Judaism views.

Echevarría and Laird offer a “provisional Pauline chronology” (Jesus’s crucifixion is AD 33, Paul’s conversion AD 33/34) followed by two chapters on Paul’s missionary journeys and his trip to Rome. They accept the traditional view that Paul was released from prison after the book of Acts and engaged in ministry (perhaps) in Spain and Crete, arrested again in Rome, and was executed under Nero. They recognize that not all scholars agree, although they do not interact directly with them. Their chronology relies on an early date for Acts and the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. They also collect what can be known about Paul’s death from early church writers (including the Acts of Paul). Question 10 discusses Paul’s missionary strategy. He intentionally targeted unreached urban centers with an “integrated lifestyle.” Paul lived and worked in these communities, culturalizing his Gospel proclamation (1 Cor 9:19-23). He “conducted his life so as to avoid needless offense” (89).

The second part of the book deals with Paul’s writings. They cover basic introductory materials such as date, destination, etc. Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s letters; otherwise, all their views are traditional. They deal with challenges to Pauline authorship (Question 18) and responses to those objections (Question 19). They discuss Paul’s use of secretaries, letter carriers, and the responsibilities of a letter carrier (Question 13).

Questions 15 and 16 reflect Laird’s interest in the New Testament canon. When were Paul’s letters first collected and published? They argue for an early collection. Paul’s collections were “likely formed from duplicate copies in Paul’s possession” (130). Eventually, a ten-letter collection was supplemented by the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. They discuss whether Paul wrote the book of Hebrews (Question 16). They observed that Paul certainly influenced the book of Hebrews, and they speculate that Hebrews was a speech by Paul. They conclude by pointing out that the arguments against Pauline authorship of Hebrews are not as strong as often assumed. Finally, with respect to canon, are there lost letters written by the apostle Paul? In Question 17, they discuss “lost” letters like the Corinthian correspondence. If there are lost letters, it is because the recipients simply did not copy them.

In the third section of the book, Echevarría and Laird answer questions about Paul’s theology. They survey ten proposals for a possible center of Paul’s theology and conclude that “crucifixion and resurrection” is the central theme. All doctrine flows from Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, including the other proposals. This section includes chapters on Christology, atonement, and several Christian practices (conversion, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, law and grace, and faith and works). With respect to eschatology, they observe that Paul has a two-age eschatology in keeping with the common Jewish view of this age and the age to come. There are some signs that the new age has already begun (such as resurrection and the Holy Spirit), but others have not yet arrived, such as the second coming of Christ. They argue that Paul’s view of an imminent return of Christ drives his mission (249). Paul’s mission is “to fulfill Isaiah’s vision of gathering the Gentiles into the community of God’s saving promises (250).

This section also includes answers to several specific questions. They include two chapters on the New Perspective on Paul. Echevarría and Laird summarize the views of N. T. Wright and James Dunn, the key popularizers of E. P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism. These views are then critiqued (Question 34). They find rights emphasis on covenant in Paul’s thought problematic and are not convinced by Dunn’s “Works of the Law.”  The next question concerns a hot topic often discussed along with the New Perspective, the phrase pistis Christou. Does this refer to the faithfulness of Christ or the believer’s faith in Christ? Although there are several chapters on the New Perspective on Paul, Echevarría and Laird are not influenced by this popular trend in Pauline studies. Although they are fair in their critique of the New Perspective, their answers represent a traditional view of Paul.

The final chapters of the book deal with controversial topics such as Paul’s view of marriage and divorce, the role of women in ministry, the continuation (or cessation) of sign gifts, the problem of slavery and racial division, and supersessionism (has the church replaced Israel?).

Conclusion: Echevarría and Laird’s 40 Questions on the Apostle Paul is a basic introduction to Paul’s life, ministry, and theology. The book will introduce students to basic issues and arguments current in Pauline studies. As with other volumes in this series, each chapter ends with five discussion questions, which make the book a good fit for a class on Paul’s letters and theology. Advanced readers may be frustrated with the brevity of each chapter, but that is due to the goals of the 40 Questions series. Echevarría and Laird provide footnotes for readers interested in pursuing topics in more depth. However, I would like to see a basic bibliography a the conclusion of each chapter identifying four or five key books on the topic.

Extras: Chad Burchett interviews Miguel Echevarría for the SEBTS blog, Beyond the Book.

 

Other books reviewed in this series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Book Review: Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Second Edition

McKnight, Scot, Lynn H. Cohick, Nijay K. Gupta, Eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Second Edition. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2023. 1264 pp. Hb; $70. Link to IVP Academic

In 1993, IVP Academic published the first edition of The Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (DPL). I was taking a seminary exegesis course on Paul’s letters, and the DPL was a required textbook. This was my first introduction to controversial topics like the New Perspective on Paul and Social-scientific approaches to Paul. When I began teaching Pauline Lit classes at the university, the DPL was a constant companion. I often send students to the Dictionary as a source for research papers. IVP Academic handed out samplers of this second edition and IBR, making it one of the most anticipated books of 2023.

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

Remarkably, it has been thirty years since that first edition, and things have changed considerably in Pauline studies. The New Perspective is not new anymore. The Apocalyptic Paul and Paul within Judaism are hot topics barely covered in the original DPL. Today, people ask questions about sexuality and gender, which scholars rarely addressed in 1993.

As the editors explain in the preface, “The DPL2, as we editors call it, is not a mere touch-up of the original DPL but truly a completely new dictionary.” Although fifteen articles from the first edition were revised, the rest were written for the second edition. The IVP Academic promotional material states, “Over 95% of the articles have been written specifically for this edition.” The second edition is about 200 pages larger.

Scanning through the table of contents confirms this. This second edition has many new topics which need to be addressed; these caught my attention:

  • Louise A, Gosbell, Disability and Paul
  • Jamie P Davies, Apocalyptic Paul
  • J. Johnson Leese, Ecological Paul
  • Michael F. Bird, Supersessionism
  • Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity
  • Joshua Jipp, Hospitality
  • Trevor J. Burke, Kinship Language in Paul
  • Lynn H. Cohick, Paul and Judaism
  • Craig A. Evans, Qumran and Paul
  • Dean Flemming, Mission

Paul Trebilco updates his article on Travel and Itinerary Plans (“Itineraries, Travel Plans, Journeys, Apostolic Parousia” in the first edition) which now includes a detailed chart comparing Paul’s letters to the book of Acts.

Paul’s views on women and sexuality have become increasingly controversial in Pauline studies over the last thirty years. Michelle Lee-Barnewall contributes a detailed article on Man and Woman in Paul (dealing with several of the most controversial verses). This replaces Craig Keener’s excellent article in the first edition. Second, she also has an updated discussion of marriage and divorce (including adultery and incest), replacing Gerald Hawthorne’s brief article in the first edition. Lucy Peppiatt contributes a full article on Woman (in the first edition, there was only a pointer back to Hawthorne’s article). Judith. A. Oder has an article on Women named by Paul (Junia was a woman Paul counted as prominent among the apostles) and an article on maternal imagery in Paul. Justin K. Gill writes on Sexuality, Sexual Ethics. Unlike the first edition, this article has detailed information about both Greco-Roman and Jewish backgrounds to Paul’s sexual ethics. Preston Sprinkle contributed a much more detailed article on Homosexuality. The bibliographies for each of the articles bring the discussions up to date. Barry. N. Danylak add an article on Singleness and Celibacy.

One major section of the second edition is a collection of articles under the heading “Interpretation of Paul” spanning fifty pages. As Nijay Gupta explains in his introduction to the section, “A reader’s living world shapes their reading and interpretation, and all readers can learn from insights and perspectives from other communities” (483).

  • African American
  • Asian and Asian American
  • Augustine
  • Calvin
  • Jewish
  • Luther
  • Medieval
  • Modern European
  • New Perspective
  • Patristic
  • Postcolonial
  • Reading Paul Latinamente (Latin American)

This section is useful, but a section on feminist interpretations of Paul would improve the list (although there is a reference to feminist interpretations in the entry on postcolonial interpretation). Shane. J. Wood covers anti-imperial readings of Paul in his article on “Politics and Power.” Armin Baum contributes an article on pseudepigraphy, formerly covered only in first-edition articles on Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. Baum includes “coping strategies for canonical pseudepigraphy” in Catholic and Protestant traditions. The articles on Ephesians (Lynn Cohick) and the Pastoral Epistles (Lyn M Kidson) discuss pseudepigraphy. Both articles are open to traditional authorship but do not strongly advocate for the view.

The second edition also allows a new generation of scholars to contribute to the ongoing conversation. Sadly, some original contributors have passed on (I. Howard Marshall, Leon Morris, James Dunn, Larry Hurtado, Grant Osborne, Gordon Fee), and others have retired. Quite a few scholars who were only starting their careers when the first edition was published are now major contributors to DPL2. For example, both associate editors, Lynn Cohick and Nijay Gupta, are now established Pauline Literature scholars. Not only are the contributors younger, but they are more diverse. Judging only by names, I count twenty-eight women in the second edition, compared to only eight in the first. There are more international contributors.

One of the most important features of the Dictionary of Paul and his Letters is the bibliography at the conclusion of the article. There are often extensive and will point students and scholars to the relevant literature to further explore the topic. If you use the version in Logos Bible Software, many entries are tagged for easy reference.  Something new in the second edition: the author’s name is printed in bold in the bibliography, making the list easier to read.

Conclusion. The second edition of Dictionary of Paul and his Letters is worth the investment. You should immediately buy this book and keep the first edition handy since there is so little overlap between the two.

 

 

NB: Thanks to IVP Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. I did also purchase the Logos edition. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Aaron Sherwood, Romans: A Structural, Thematic, and Exegetical Commentary

Sherwood Aaron. Romans: A Structural, Thematic, and Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2020. xv+949 pp.; Hb.; $54.99. Link to Lexham Press

In the introduction to this new commentary on Romans, Aaron Sherwood states his goal is an accessible commentary that avoids atomistic approaches, one that “notes the trees but focus on the forest… the investigation especially looks at how Paul uses the letter structure to help convey his message. This approach allows Paul to set the theological priorities of Romans, ensuring that modern readers take Paul’s own meaning and theology from his discussion” (p. 1). Sherwood previously published a revision of his 2010 Ph.D. dissertation supervised by John Barclay, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 82; Brill, 2013) and The Word of God Has Not Failed: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9 (Lexham 2015).

Sherwood RomansIn the 91-page introduction to the book focuses more upon the overall shape and message of Romans. Sherwood offers three reasons Paul wrote the book of Romans. First, Paul wants to establish a warm relationship with his audience (1:1-15; 15:14-33). Second, Paul wants to care for his audience pastorally (12:1-15:13). Third, Paul must defend himself against a negative reputation that has preceded him to the Roman churches. So 1:16-11:36 is Paul’s apology for his gospel. Paul’s goal in this large section of the letter is to ensure that nothing prevents his pastoral care from being effective nor hinders his mission to Spain. What is unusual in this commentary is Sherwood’s view that the main body of the letter is 12:1-15:13 rather than the eleven-chapter theological section. Scholars often wonder why Paul wrote such a detailed theological treatise to churches he had not yet visited.

Sherman observes that scholars generally agree on most critical introductory issues for the book of Romans. Paul wrote the letter from Corinth in the winter of AD 56-57. The audience is a combination of Jews and non-Jews who were committed to Israel’s scriptural heritage. Paul wrote to numerous house churches, which were healthy, although they were facing a few challenges. Scholars are equally unanimous interview that Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to Rome and was the initial reader of the letter (p. 778). He agrees with Esther Ng’s conclusion that Phoebe was not the leader of a congregation, Paul’s patron, nor his serving helper. She worked as the provider of hospitality and a supporting member of Paul’s missionary organization.

Regarding the theology of Romans, Sherwood argues the main point of the book is the Gospel and the Christ-event which inaugurated God’s Kingdom on earth, so that believers are as eschatologically restored. Israel is located in Jesus, so those who trust in Jesus are Israel (p. 42). All believers are quote God’s “humanity of Israel,” so they ought to live out their relationship with Jesus and their identity as Jesus’s disciples (ethics, pastoral care). Since God’s goal in the Christ event his eschatological restoration of humanity, missions is God’s vehicle for working with God to provide salvation for unreached people.

With respect to Christology, Sherwood detects a (proto)Trinitarianism in Romans. Jesus is God’s Messiah, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share unique divine identity of Israel’s God. Soteriology saturates the book of Romans. He coins the term “righteousization,” which is more or less equivalent to the more common theological word “justification.” This term appears consistently throughout the commentary where one would expect the word justification. Believers are righteousized by entering into a trust relationship with God in Christ. In Romans, “the process of righteousization (or justification) seems to follow a certain algorithm:

  • Believers believe in the report of the Christ event.
  • At the same time, believers trust God’s declaration of who Christ is and what he accomplished, as well as what God accomplished through him.
  • Also at the same time, believers are in a trusting personal relationship with Jesus, and with God in Jesus.
  • Then, with the above three elements in place, God gifts believers with the removal of sin and guilt against himself.
  • God also gifts them with a transformation of their identity, by which their character emulates God’s own divine character (p. 60).

Sherwood observes that soteriology is relatively distant from the center of Paul’s theology in the book of Romans. “It is profound, but it is less substantial than is typically assumed” (p. 62). For example, Paul’s limited references to soteriology in Romans do not show God’s grace is inherently irresistible, nor does Sherwood find any idea of imputed righteousness in the book. Rather than imputed righteousness, “righteousizing is transformational” (p. 61).

This rejection of imputed righteousness is associated with a New Perspective on Paul, but Sherwood is not a representative of this view. He thinks the New Perspective provides two helpful correctives to the traditional view of Paul. First, Romans does not focus on the tension between grace and works (or Law), and second, Second Temple Judaism was not a legalistic religion. However, Sherwood thinks the New Perspective reduces Paul’s theology to its sociological dimension, something he calls “an unsound methodological emphasis” (p. 67). Sherwood takes the “works of the law” (ἔργων νόμου) in Romans 3:20 as the whole law rather than limiting the phrase to the boundary markers (such as circumcision, food taboos and Sabbath). In fact, Sherwood translates ἔργων νόμου as Torah rather than “works of the law.” He says this phrase means “the Jewish commonplace of Torah observance, in the sense of having a lifestyle, identity, and devotion to righteousness that is characterized by habitually living in faithfulness to the Torah” (p. 227). He includes a lengthy digression on the use of the phrase “works of the law” in 4QMMT. He concludes the similarity between Romans 3:20 and 4QMMT is “rather incidental” and 4QMMT “should not be allowed to distract from a proper understanding of Paul’s message” (p. 234). This discussion is somewhat disappointing since the primary source he cites in this section is a 1994 Biblical Archaeology Review magazine article by Martin Abegg rather than the two major articles on Paul and 4QMMT by James Dunn or N. T. Wright.

Given Sherwood’s previous work on Paul’s use of Scripture in Romans 9, it is not surprising he devotes a large section of his introduction to Paul’s use of scripture. He provides two charts of Paul’s citations of the Hebrew Bible, one in canonical order in a second in order of appearance in Romans. Sometimes Paul’s use of Scripture is described as a midrash, although it is certainly not exegesis. Sherwood points out Paul has already done his exegesis and is now using cited Scripture in a “faithful, contextually determined meaning of that scripture in a way that serves his communicative strategy” (p. 74). He suggests Paul uses references to Scripture in a way analogous to a modern academic. Paul makes his theological point and then offers a “footnote of authorities” to support his point (p. 77). He argues Romans was not written from the perspective of New Testament studies, “Paul’s use of Scripture requires an interpretation that comes out of Old Testament studies” (p. 77).

The introduction concludes with helpful a ten-page glossary of key terms.

In the body of the commentary itself, individual units begin with Sherwood, his own translation. This is followed by a paragraph highlighting key idea of the pericope with the thesis statement for the unit set out in bold type. He then outlines the structure of the unit by means of a syntactical display of the English text. Although there are some comments on the structure, he avoids technical rhetorical terms. “Analysis and Interpretation” is a phrase-by-phrase commentary on the English text. There is no Greek in the commentary’s body, and it is rare in the footnotes. Occasionally he refers to textual critical issues in the footnotes, but this is not the focus of the commentary. There are references to contemporary scholarship in the footnotes, but in the main text Sherwood provides a readable and accessible commentary on Paul’s key ideas uncluttered by scholarly debate. As he stressed in the introduction, his commentary is selective and non-comprehensive. Each unit concludes with a summary and theological reflection. These reflections focus on the unit itself rather than larger ideas of Pauline or canonical theology.

In addition to the commentary Sherwood provides several short digressions throughout the commentary. These deal with controversial issues such as homosexuality in Romans 1 (155-57), imputed righteousness (269-71), and Paul’s view of empire (p. 673-76). Following the commentary are seven substantial excurses on controversial theological topics commonly addressed in a Romans commentary.

  • Natural Theology and the Identity of the Accused in Romans 1:18-32
  • Interplay between Romans 3:27-8:17 and Galatians 3:1-4:7
  • Salvation, Redemption, Deliverance, and Atonement in Romans
  • The “I” In Romans7
  • Divine Foreknowledge and Predestination in Romans 8:28-30
  • The Salvation of “All Israel” In Romans 11:25-27
  • The Disputed Originality of Romans 16

These excurses are substantial (over fifty pages total). By separating them from their context in the main commentary, Sherwood achieves his goal of an accessible and readable commentary since the average reader is not prepared for a protracted discussion of the “I” in Romans 7. Sherwood argues Paul’s speaker in Chapter 7 is “a representative Jew who is both convicted of his obligation to obey Torah perfectly and is perfectly appalled by his inability to do so” (p. 629). Regarding predestination and Election in Romans 8:28-30, Sherwood avoids both Reformed and Arminian positions, stating that his exegesis is compatible with either position (which is probably not going to make either side very happy). Regarding the originality of Romans 16, he states clearly “all things considered, there are no compelling let alone sound reasons for rejecting the originality of Romans 16:1-23” (p. 851).

He does not think that “all Israel” in Romans 11:25- 27 refers to future salvation of unbelieving Jews (p. 841). In his view, the best reading of this passage is that Paul is making a positive statement about God’s process of reconstituting his people, come what may. “All Israel” therefore “refers to God’s corporate Christocentric people” (p. 846) and that a reading of Romans 11:25-32 “with an expectation of ethnic Jews’ salvation would be a mistake” (p. 847).

Conclusion. Sherwood achieves his goal of providing an accessible commentary that sheds light on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He avoids tedious comparisons of views from other major commentaries, although he is certainly informed by them. Nor he does not get bogged down in exegetical details which distract the commentator from Paul’s overarching theological themes.

 

NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Background to the Pastoral Epistles

The background to the Pastoral epistles is a matter of some speculation. The letters to Timothy and Titus are collectively called the “pastoral epistles” and are usually described as “letters to young pastors” on topics of church organization. This common way of describing these letters misses the obvious fact that by this point neither Timothy nor Titus could be called “young,” nor are they ever really described as pastors in the letters.

Both men are described as personal representatives of Paul and both men are given the task of dealing with some sort of theological deviation from Paul’s gospel which likely includes some practical, moral failure on the part of elders and deacons in Ephesus (and potentially Crete). First Timothy is less of a manual that could be subtitled “how to be a pastor” than directions to Timothy on how to deal with a serious problem plaguing Paul’s churches in Ephesus.

This is how I would reconstruct the situation behind First Timothy. In this post, I am more interested in placing these letters into Paul’s career at this point than describing the “opponents” who are implied by the letter.

  1. Paul spent about three years in Ephesus (Acts 19). During this time he would have established churches in the city and trained others who planted still more churches. Colossians is evidence that at least one other city near Ephesus was evangelized by a Pauline disciple. Revelation 2-3 mentions 6 churches in addition to Ephesus which may have been established as a result of Paul’s three years of ministry in Ephesus.
  2. While it is impossible to know how large the church was in Ephesus when Paul left, we do know from Acts that enough people had joined the Christians that they were an economic threat to the silversmiths who made small models of Artemis (Acts 19).
  3. In Acts 20, Paul’s final words to the Ephesian elders predicts that there will be some among the Christians who fall away from sound doctrine and practice. The connection between Acts 20 and the pastorals has led scholars such as C. F. D. Moule to suggest that Luke himself is the author of the letters. Luke intended them as an epistolary conclusion to his Luke/Acts. For a review of this argument, see Hagner, The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012), 623.
  4. Paul traveled to Jerusalem where he is arrested at held under house arrest in Caesarea for two years. He is then transferred to Rome after appealing to Caesar. He is in Rome under house arrest for two years. This is where the book of Acts ends. In all, Paul is away from Ephesus for at least five years before he wrote First Timothy, perhaps two or three years more than that.
  5. Paul is released from prison after Acts 28 and continues his ministry, likely into Spain but perhaps visiting churches he established in the earlier parts of his ministry. Somehow he learns his fears for the Ephesian churches have come true and some elders / leaders have moved away from Paul’s teaching and practice. The nature of the problems in the Ephesian churches may be a division between “Pauline congregations” and Jewish-Christian congregations.

Timothy was sent to Ephesus to encourage the congregations to “guard the deposit” which had been given to the churches. As Bill Mounce points out, Timothy was not a pastor, or elder, or bishop in these Ephesian churches. He was “an itinerant apostolic ‘delegate’” (The Pastoral Epistles, lviii; citing Jeremias).Timothy has already been sent to difficult situations as Paul’s personal representative, he was sent to both Thessalonica (Acts 17) and Corinth to continue Paul’s work.

Was Paul as an Apostle?

Paul claims to be called to be an apostle in each of the undisputed letters (Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:1) as well as several other letters (Eph 1:1, Col 1:1, 1-2 Tim, Titus). In addition to the headings of these letters, Paul refers to his apostleship in several other contexts. In Rom 11:13 he calls himself the “apostle to the Gentiles” and in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul defends his status as an apostle on a par with Peter or Barnabas. But Paul never claims to be one of the Twelve. With the exception of Matthias, the replacement for Judas, this group were chosen by Jesus before the crucifixion.

Was Paul as an Apostle?In fact, in Galatians 1 Paul emphasizes his commission as an apostle but distinct from the Twelve.  An “apostle” is someone who is sent as a representative of another, usually some kind of a group.  Most lexicons suggests the English “ambassador, delegate, messenger” for the Greek concept of an apostle.  Most scholars now associate the Greek apostolos (ἀπόστολος) with the Hebrew shaliach. A person who was sent as a representative or agent acts on the same authority of the sending group.

For example, when the Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to Antioch, it is possible he was send as a shaliach or apostle of the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:22).  He would have acted as their representative on the scene should questions arise. Paul is not an apostle sent by the church of Antioch to the churches of Galatia, nor is he an agent sent out by the Jerusalem church. He never claims to be one of the Twelve Apostles, in fact Galatians 1-2 make it clear he is not part of that particular group. Paul’s claim in Galatians is that is an apostle of Jesus Christ and God the Father.

In 1 Corinthians 15:9 Paul alludes to his status as an apostle in his discussion of the resurrection. Paul was not a follower of Jesus until his encounter in Acts 9. As is well known, he was a persecutor of Jesus’ followers prior to the resurrection appearance of Jesus. Paul claims in in 1 Cor 15 to be an eye-witness to the resurrection, albeit one with different credentials than Peter or James since he did not know Jesus before the resurrection.

This experience was like an “untimely birth” (ESV). This word (ἔκτρωμα) is used for a stillborn child or a miscarriage. Many commentators think this is an insult Paul faced in his ministry, he is not just a “Johnny-come-lately” or someone who is trying to “jump on the band-wagon,” or that he has some spiritual deficiency disqualifying him from being considered a “real apostle.” Rather than responding to an attack, Paul is simply listing himself as the final witness because he was the final witness, and his experience is unique among the apostles. But again, he does not claim to be one of the Twelve; like James, the Lord’s Brother, he is commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to be an apostle, but NOT one of the Twelve.

In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul sarcastically refers to his opponents in Corinth as “super-apostles.” But since this rare word can mean superior, it is possible the opponents considered themselves to be superior to Paul and described themselves as his superiors to the members of the Corinthian church. Some have argued this is a reference to the apostles in Jerusalem, but it seems unlikely Paul would refer the Twelve with this snarky title (like added “so-called” to something to question its authority). More likely the super apostles are Greeks in Corinth who have accepted the Gospel but are now behaving like Greek intellectuals. Like many of the other issues in Corinth, Paul is dealing with a pagan worldview in the church.

By way of summary, there was a group called the Twelve who were apostles, and a few other people who were commissioned by Jesus after the resurrection (James and Paul) and were therefore also considered apostles. There were others who claimed to be apostles, like the super apostles mentioned in 2 Corinthians who claimed authority as apostles but were not commissioned by the resurrected Jesus.

What is Paul claiming when he calls himself an Apostle?  What does it mean for a letter like 1 Thessalonians, where he does not use the title but then says he could have made demands as an apostle of Christ?