Was Paul Out of Line With the Other Apostles?
Before Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, he was a notorious persecutor of Christians who was extremely opposed to the Apostles of Christ and those under their leadership. However, we are dealing here with the time after his conversion.
And in considering whether Paul was in line with the other apostles, we are not dealing with the many false apostles who were around in the first century nor with the many false apostles who are around today. The title question is rather dealing with those whom the Bible recognizes to have been appointed as Apostles by Jesus.
Some assert that Paul himself was a false apostle who was opposed to Peter, John, and the rest of the genuine Apostles. Here we will look at several claims that these commonly put forth as alleged proof of that.
Some say Paul was out of line with the other Apostles in relation to the Acts chapter 15 council.
It is important to note what led to the Acts 15 council.
Acts 15:1-2: “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.”
Even though the Acts 15 council occurred due to a dispute between certain men from Judaea with Paul and Barnabas, those men of Judaea were not acting on behalf of the Apostles who were at Jerusalem. Those men were teaching that Gentile converts to Christ should be required to keep the Mosaic ceremonies. It will be seen that those men were the ones who were out of line with the Apostles at Jerusalem. Look at how this is confirmed in the letter which was written immediately after the Acts 15 council.
Acts 15:22-26: “Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law (my note- this is referring to the ceremonial aspect of the Law of Moses- circumcision represented the whole package of the Mosaic ceremonies- that is what was discussed at the Acts 15 council): to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
No one can cite even the slightest disagreement between Paul and leadership of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15. That is because no such disagreement is recorded there. The idea that many have of Paul being in conflict at that council with Peter and/or with James (who was the head overseer of the Jerusalem church) is a delusion. There was no such conflict. Acts 15 demonstrates that Peter supported the testimony of Paul and Barnabas. It also demonstrates that James agreed and gave his verdict accordingly. The men who were in disagreement with all of this are not even mentioned by name. Yet the chapter does make it clear that they were not acting on behalf of the leadership of the Jerusalem church.
Some say that Paul was out of line with the other Apostles due to his rebuke of Peter and several other things which are mentioned in Galatians chapters 1 and 2.
Paul said several things in Galatians chapters 1 and 2 which some use to claim that he was opposed to the other Apostles. Yet Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2 was due to one thing which Peter did that was inconsistent with Peter’s own doctrine. Paul was not in disagreement with Peter’s doctrine nor with his mission.
Let’s look at some statements from Galatians chapters 1 and 2.
Galatians 1:11-12: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Paul elaborates on this in the next five verses. Though he is emphasizing that he had not arrived at his understanding of the Gospel through human training, he will make it clear that those conclusions were not contradictory to what was taught by Peter and the other Apostles.
Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother (this is the same James who gave the verdict at the Acts 15 council).”
Some claim that a disagreement about the Gospel occurred between Paul and Peter within the time span spoken of in Galatians 1:18-19. They point to Paul’s testimony in relation to this trip to Jerusalem which is recorded in Acts 22:17-21. However, even though Paul was staying with Peter during this visit to Jerusalem which he made, note that what is said in Acts 22 concerning this visit occurred when Paul was at the Temple.
Acts 22:17-21: “And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”
Paul said here that he was told to flee Jerusalem because of the Jews in general there rather than because of Peter and the other Apostles. Paul was testifying to a hostile Jewish crowd at Jerusalem in Acts 22 and was recounting an event many years beforehand in verses 17 to 21. The crowd who heard this message knew that Paul was referring to the larger Jewish population of Jerusalem rather than the leaders of the Christian church at Jerusalem. Look at how they responded immediately afterwards.
Acts 22:22: “And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.”
There is nothing indicating that Paul was out of line with the other Apostles in Galatians chapter 1. What about the things which he said about them in Galatians chapter 2?
Galatians 2:1-2: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.”
Paul’s emphasis within the previous chapter that his authority and understanding were not dependent on the other Apostles of Christ is not inconsistent with Paul’s willingness to check himself by consulting with them and being open to their correction. It would be arrogant not to do this. And why would he not also do this for their sakes? He immediately goes on to say plainly that the Apostles at Jerusalem were indeed in agreement with him.
Galatians 2:3-5: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”
Circumcision, along with the package of Mosaic ceremonies which was often summed up by the term circumcision, is the very issue which Paul was addressing the Galatians about. Paul’s co-worker Titus, a physically uncircumcised Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised by the Apostles at Jerusalem. The Galatians were under the spell of people who were like the people whom Paul was contending with in verses 4 and 5. Yet those people were not the Apostles at Jerusalem nor anyone sent by them. Paul is emphasizing to the Galatians that those compelling them to be circumcised are out of line with the Apostles at Jerusalem while he is in agreement with them. Paul has their backing. The Acts 15 council is further proof of that.
Galatians 2:6: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:”
What Paul said about the leaders of the Jerusalem church here was not said out of disrespect. It was rather said to emphasize that no one is infallible and no one is automatically right because of any real or alleged office that they might have. Paul even implied the same about himself back in Galatians 1:8. What is said in Galatians 2:6 is indeed a rebuke to the concept of the Catholic Pope and the idolatrous attitude towards the Pope which the Catholic Church promotes. It is also a rebuke to all who think too highly of those whom they regard as spiritual leaders.
Galatians 2:6 is further proof that Paul is emphasizing to the Galatians that he is in line with the Apostles at Jerusalem. They said nothing to correct or improve upon his understanding of the Gospel as he consulted with them.
Galatians 2:7-10: “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas (that’s Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”
Remember also that neither Paul nor the Apostles in Jerusalem preached exclusively to Jews or exclusively to Gentiles. It actually can be said that Christ was only preached to Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism in the time between Acts chapter 2 and Acts chapter 9. However, that changed when Peter was sent to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10 (which was well before the events recorded in Galatians chapter 2).
Now we come to Paul’s rebuke of Peter.
Galatians 2:11-14: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Before bringing this up, Paul had established that he and the other Apostles were in agreement concerning both their message and their mission. Peter was rebuked not only for doing something inconsistent with Paul’s beliefs, but also for doing something inconsistent with his own. Peter had been carried away in the moment by a fear of man which caused him to do something wrong and which caused him to influence others to do likewise.
Paul saying that the men whom Peter was afraid of came from James obviously means that they came from the Jerusalem church. Yet we are not told how much, if at all, that these men were actually pressuring Peter not to eat with the Gentile Christians at Antioch. They may not have even been bothered if they had seen Peter eating with Gentiles. Yet even if they would have been, they also would have been out of line with the stated beliefs of James and the other Apostles in that case. It can be said with certainty that Paul was not out of line with the doctrine which the other Apostles taught when he rebuked Peter.
Peter received Paul’s rebuke and repented. We will see later that he would afterwards commend Paul’s writings as being of equal authority to other Biblical writings.
Some use Paul’s meeting with James in Acts chapter 21 to claim that he was out of line with the other Apostles.
Paul visits the Christians in Jerusalem again in Acts 21 and meets with the leadership of the Jerusalem church. James and the elders of the Jerusalem church are questioning whether Paul had been faithful to continue to practice the Mosaic ceremonies. The Acts 15 council had not released Jewish Christians from the Mosaic ceremonies. Why would James question Paul’s faithfulness to what was decided at that council? Because of false accusations and unsubstantiated rumors which were going around.
Paul and the Jewish Christians who were heeding him had indeed continued to practice the Mosaic ceremonies. They could do so for the right reasons since God hadn’t released them from those at this time. The Temple at Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. The leadership in Jerusalem had stuck to what was decided in Acts chapter 15 and Paul had done the same.
Instead of believing the rumors about Paul, James rather put him to a very reasonable test. Some think that Paul was being deceptive in Acts 21. They are among the very people who communicate the false concept that Paul was out of line with the other Apostles. Paul’s response to James’ test was in line with how he was already living. Paul did not take a Nazirite vow in Acts 21, yet he purified himself at the Temple with four men who were completing a Nazirite vow and paid the expenses for their offerings. Paul’s partaking in a purification ritual at the Temple and sponsoring four men who had taken a Nazirite vow was not an act. It was a genuine demonstration that the rumors about him forsaking the Mosaic ceremonies and telling other Jewish Christians to do the same were indeed false.
Acts 21:17-26: “And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.”
Paul was also acting totally consistent with his own writings here.
1 Corinthians 7:18: “Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.”
Yet remember that all these things occurred before the second Jewish Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and Jerusalem ceased to be the place where the Lord’s worship was centered. This occurrence made the ceremonial aspect of the Law of Moses impossible for anyone to faithfully carry out. There was also no promise given of a restoration 70 years later like there was when the first Temple was destroyed and the Jews were carried into captivity by the Babylonians. Jerusalem’s calamity in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans was very different from its destruction through the Babylonians centuries beforehand because the Messiah had already come and been rejected by the Jewish nation.
The decision in Acts 15 that the Gentile converts “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood”, though they do not need to keep the Mosaic ceremonies, is not just a list of stipulations for facilitating peace between Jewish and Gentile Christians. These directions are entrance requirements for Christian baptism and church membership. They are also not a summary of everything Christianity requires. The thought is basically that even though it is not necessary to circumcise Gentiles and put them under the Mosaic ceremonies in order for them to be Christian church members, it is still necessary to be absolutely sure that they have indeed broken off from idolatry, fornication, and eating blood. Eating blood would also include eating things strangled since strangling is a way some kill animals so they can be eaten with their blood. People need very specific instruction and warning about how these things are not consistent with Christianity. This is no less true today. The Acts 15 council is not teaching that anyone is released from the moral aspects of the Law of Moses. Idolaters, fornicators, and others who transgress God’s moral law will still go to hell- whether they profess faith in Jesus Christ or not (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8, etc).
Now let’s look at the accusation that Paul preached a different gospel than the other Apostles.
Paul wrote much in his letters about man’s inability to earn God’s favor so that He would be indebted to justify anyone through their works. In relation, Paul wrote extensively in his letters about how the Jewish ceremonies were unable to actually atone for sin. They were rather prescribed to be done as works of faith during the time when the obligation to perform them had not been lifted. Through the abuse of many passages in Paul’s epistles which are related to these things, many claim that Paul taught faith alone saves and keeping God’s commandments is unnecessary for salvation. Those who claim this are dead wrong.
The concept that Paul preached justification by faith alone while James and other writers of the New Testament did not do so is false. Neither Paul nor any other inspired writer of the Bible preached justification by faith alone. They all rather preached justification by faith. “Faith alone” is an invention of false teachers that were out of line with the Apostles. Paul was not one of those. Like the other true Apostles of Christ, Paul preached that exercising saving faith in Christ means submitting to the authority of His kingdom and being subject to the law of God. A living faith in Christ must work in accordance with God’s commandments. This is not the same as earning justification through the works of the law. Remember also that all of the other Apostles agreed with Paul in the Acts 15 decision. Going forward, Gentiles would only need to be subject to the moral law of God and Christian ordinances without needing to convert to Judaism and keep the Mosaic ceremonies anymore.
Along these lines, in reference to Luke 19:1-10, Zacchaeus would have been condemned if he had sought justification through the works of the law. All who have sinned deserve condemnation and no one can atone for their own sins. Zacchaeus still rightly recognized that Jesus is the supreme, righteous authority figure and that he needed to forsake his transgressions of the law in order to receive Jesus. This obviously would mean paying appropriate restitution to those whom he had defrauded, forsaking the covetous way of living which he had previously been committed to, and going forward with the chief aim of doing what is right in God’s eyes. Zacchaeus was obviously justified through a faith which worked righteousness and rejected all commitment to sin. This necessarily means that he was not justified by faith alone. But did Paul preach in accordance with how Zacchaeus was justified? He sure did.
Acts 26:9-23 demonstrates that Paul taught people must repent and do works fitting for repentance in order to be brought out of darkness into light and forgiven through Christ. His message did not change from the time he began to preach the Gospel of Christ nor did he in any way preach inconsistently with Moses and the other Old Testament prophets.
Acts 20:20-27 demonstrates that Paul taught repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul did not preach an easy gospel of grace. The grace which he preached was rather only offered in the context of bringing people out of their sins to live under the righteous authority of Christ. He only preached the grace of God in the context of the kingdom of God. This necessitated him declaring all the counsel of God in order for his hands to be pure from the blood of all men. Note also the closing verses of Acts along these lines.
Paul preached justification by faith just like Peter did in saying the following words to the Christians whom he wrote to.
1 Peter 2:24-25: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
Jesus died to make an atonement for sins and He lives to justify those who turn to Him in surrender to live consistently with His righteous authority. This is totally in line with the message which Paul declared.
Paul and Peter both openly commended each other in their own writings and mutually acknowledged alignment with each other in 1 Corinthians 15:5-11 and 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter even described Paul’s epistles as having the same authority as other Biblical writings.
2 Peter 3:15-16: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (i.e. twist the meaning of), as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
Aaron’s email is: gospeltruth768@yahoo.com