Chapter One

PAUL’S UNIQUE APOSTLESHIP

This follows our major premise in our syllogism: “Paul is the revelator to the church.” This places Paul in the position of being a unique apostle, separated from all the rest, “a chosen vessel,” recognized by the “Pillars” in the church at Jerusalem as the particular recipient of “the gospel of the uncircumcision” (Galatians 2:7), to which they themselves were strangers, since Paul had to communicate it to them (Galatians 2:2). This is the natural starting point for our course in Pauline Theology—the absolute uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship, the revelator to the church.

To strike the keynote of this section we wish to state first of all: “There are two great revelators in the Bible, each standing in a unique relationship to his own age and separate elect peoples” (to two great elect peoples--Israel, the one chosen nation from all the rest; the church, election of grace, a people for God’s Son). There are two separate complete revelations to the two great brides of the Bible--Israel,   God’s wife (Hosea 2), and the church as the bride of Christ (II Corinthians 11:2, 3). Moses is the revelator of the Old Testament and of Law. Unto him was given the complete system of the Law, both ceremonially and morally, in relationship to God’s people, Israel, His chosen nation. All through the New Testament, Moses and the Law are used interchangeably (like John 1:17: “The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ”; cf. Luke 16:39: “They have Moses and the prophets”; cf. John 5:45, 46; 7:19). The general expression used all through the New Testament is “the Law of Moses.” Revelations were given to others just as inspired, at least a couple of dozen of them in the Word of God. These were important revelations, some of immediate concern, some devotional, some prophetic, but none of them added to the Law of Moses. To none other did God commit a complete system of the Law under which Israel was to abide. Thus he stands alone, the unique, single revelator of the Old Testament system of Law.

There is another who stands in the same relationship in the New Testament as did Moses in the Old; namely, Paul. He is the great revelator to the church, the New Testament elect people. To him, and him alone, Christ revealed a complete system of church truth, summed up by Paul as “my gospel.” His position in the New Testament is as unique as was Moses’ in the Old. Many will immediately cry out, “What of Christ? I thought He was the great Teacher?” Surely “Never man spake like this Man.” He was the Master Teacher, for He spake with authority as the Fountainhead of truth. But we shall see that He Himself told them, “I have many things to say unto you. but ye cannot bear them now.” And being sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. and born under the Law,” He could not reveal personally unto them the gospel of the grace of God. But in reality more is taught about Christ. than taught by Him. He is the Theme of the Bible from beginning to end. He mentions the church by name only twice, and that in a future tense, as Matthew 16:18: “I will build my church,” not yet built when He said that. How could Christ teach church truth to these disciples? Christ was born, lived taught, and died under the Law, under its curse. The church was not yet born, for the Holy Spirit was not yet given. Paul gives us the reason why Christ could not give church truth: He says that Jesus was a “minister of the circumcision to maintain the truthfulness of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Romans 15:8), and Jesus Himself said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

No, Christ could not reveal to these disciples before Pentecost the great body of church doctrine. They were too dull of hearing (cf. Acts 1:6; John 16:12). He must be “glorified” and shed forth the Holy Spirit to be their teacher, and choose a man to be the repository of the gospel. That man was Paul. He alone goes deep to interpret the cross, in its mysteries, organism, gifts, and privileges and destiny.

There is so vast and choose a man to be the repository of the gospel. That man was Paul. He alone goes deep to interpret the cross, the bride, the believer, the body of Christ, an amount that no other even mentions. James writes to “the twelve tribes of the dispersion,” now converted ones, and gives practical Christianity or “religion.” Peter writes to “the strangers of the dispersion,” Jewish converts dispersed, mostly Paul’s converts in Asia Minor. Paul distinctly tells us “that the council at Jerusalem appointed” Peter, and James, and John to go to the Jews (Galatians 2:7,9).

God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereign decree, picked one man to reveal to Israel His complete system of Law. That man was Moses. Christ, in His infinite wisdom and sovereign decree, picked one man to reveal to the church His complete system of grace and church truth. That man was Paul. William R. Newell says, in his pamphlet on Galatians I and II: “God does as He pleases, and it pleased Him to choose--first, to save people in this dispensation through ‘the foolishness of preaching’ or the ‘preached thing’: that is, through the exact message about Christ crucified and what was done at the cross (see I Cor. 1:21) and, second, it pleased Him to choose Paul to be the great Proclaimer and Revealer of just what the gospel is for this dispensation.”⁶ And Paul was just as independent of human resources and sources for his gospel as was Moses for his Law and when he wrote of creation thousands of years after it took place.

Note: Paul compared with Moses (to see the uniqueness of both revelators).

(1) Both were thoroughly trained in earthly wisdom and dialectics - Moses in the courts of Egypt: Paul in the universities of Tarsus and at the feet of Gamaliel at Jerusalem. So both had trained minds.

(2) Both were prepared from birth for their great ministries of stewardship of a dispensation. In Moses we see it in the miraculous preservation as a baby: in Paul, he so states  in Galatians 1:15: “separated from birth.”

(3)  Both were arrested by God in a marked manner--Moses at the burning bush; Paul on the Damascus Road.

(4)  Both were called and commissioned by God, face to face, uniquely and not by human instrumentality.

(5)  Both were trained by God privately, personally, after their calling and commissioning--Moses for 40 years, and on the Mount; Paul in Arabia, maybe the same Mount, for 3½ years.

(6)  Both received their complete system for their elect peoples and dispensations by personal revelation from God face to face in seculsion and independent of all human authority or teachings--Moses, Exodus 33: 11: “And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend,” and Deuteronomy 24:10: “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face”; Deuteronomy 5:4; see Numbers 12:6-8; Paul, in Galatians 1:11, 12: “direct revelation of Jesus Christ.”

(7)  So both were completely independent of human sponsorship or ordination.

(8)  Both carried their stewardship with deepest love for their charges and could wish themselves accursed or blotted out for their sakes (Exodus 32:32 and Romans 9:3).

(9)  Both could put an anathema on those who would add or subtract from their revelation or system (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32;cf.galatians 1:8,9).

(10)  Both were the humblest of men—Moses, “the meekest man on earth,” and Paul, “less than least of the saints.”

I.  Proofs of Our Major Premise: “Paul is the revelator to the church.”

A. For this position of the revelator to the church Christ couldn’t use any of the original twelve (eleven until Matthias was chosen), but He must elect a special unique apostle unhampered by all the earthly associations encumbering all the ideas of the original twelve.

First in importance to determine is that Paul was not one of the original twelve. He was not chosen to take the place of Judas, who fell. This is the interesting theory of a great number of scholars, such as Schaff and A. J. Gordon, in his Ministry of the Spirit.⁷ Dr. G. Campbell Morgan teaches it in his commentary on Acts. We shall quote him to see how it is taught: “My own conviction is that we have here a revelation of their inefficiency (that is, of their premature election of Matthias) for organization; that the election of Matthias was wrong, their idea of what was necessary as a witness to the resurrection was wrong. . .so their principle of selection was wrong. Thus we have the wrong appointment of Matthias. He was a good man, but the wrong man for this position, and he passed out of sight; (but so do all but three of the original eleven) and when presently we come to the final glory of the city of God, we see twelve foundations, etc. . . .And I am not prepared to omit Paul from the twelve, believing that he was God’s man for the ‘tilling of the gap.’ "8

Thus, they would make the election of Matthias only Peter’s choice, contending that God set aside his premature, hasty, ill-chosen choice and later chose Paul to fill up the twelve. This they do, failing to see the unique place Paul was to hold to the church, and failing to see the distinctively Jewish aspect of the twelve--to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). Paul was to be divorced from all national hopes of Israel, holding a unique position in regard to the church, which was primarily Gentile.

Proofs That Paul Was Not One of the Twelve

(a)  The Holy Spirit set His seal of approval upon the apostles’ choice of Matthias, by blessing the lot in answer to prayer, by baptizing him with the other eleven (Acts 2:4); but, clearest of all, by distinctly referring to him as one of the twelve (Acts 2:14; 6:2). Nowhere in Acts do we read of the Holy Spirit reversing their choice or condemning it.

(b) Paul distinctly shows, in I Corinthians 15:5-7, that he was not one of the twelve, nor thought of himself as one of them.

(c) Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas to complete the Jewish witness to Israel, which place Paul was not to have even according to the first church council in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9). The twelve disciples were to sit upon twelve thrones judging Israel (Matthew 19:28). Along with this “sitting upon twelve thrones” and witnessing, was the criterion “that they had continued with Jesus.” This Paul never did, but no doubt Matthias did (Acts 1:21: “Companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.”). These twelve were with Christ personally, knew Him as a man, saw when He died, actually saw and knew experimentally His burial, were eye-witnesses, saw the “many infallible proofs” of His resurrection, saw and handled His resurrection body. So the first of Acts is taken up with their witness to the resurrection of Jesus to the Jews, but nowhere is there any attempt at interpretation of this great fact. (Read Acts 1:21, 22) Paul is to be an “apostle to the Gentiles.”

B. Second in importance, it is more than passing strange that 17 out of the 28 chapters in the history of the early church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Book of Acts, are taken up with a man who was not one of the original twelve, nor even converted while Christ was on earth. Paul was not converted until years later. (The exact date of his conversion is uncertain. Clarke: 33 A.D.; Bengel: 31: Jerome: 33; Ussher: 35; Alford: 37. Pentecost was in 28 A.D., so it was years later by all estimates.) He was not even a follower of Christ on earth. He might never have seen Christ in the flesh while on earth, though it is a disputed point. He “sat at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). (Compare II Corinthians 5:16, but this portion doesn’t necessitate Paul having known Christ “after the flesh.”) The Book of Acts loses sight of the original twelve and carries forth the history of the early church through the labors of a former stranger to the twelve.

Three, and three only, of the twelve hold any place of importance in this Spirit-inspired history, and these three alone of the twelve are used to write inspired writings--James, Peter, and John (Jude was the Lord’s brother, and not one of the twelve). James, the son of Zebedee, gets only one verse in Acts as an obituary. But all the rest are not even mentioned by name after the Lord’s ascension, and disappear from the canon of Scripture. The labors of the three take only a few chapters, the deacofis take up more space, and at chapter 13 the whole missionary effort and center shifts from Jerusalem to Antioch in Assyria. Certainly the Holy Spirit considered the apostle Paul important and unique.

C. God needed a different kind of man for the position as the revelator to the church than any of the twelve in Jerusalem. This is clearly seen when you read Acts. The apostles and the church at Jerusalem never got away from Judaism and its taints of legalism. This is very important to see. It explains all we can know of why Jesus passed over all the twelve, even the three of the inner circle--Peter, James, and John and picked a stranger, a persecutor of the church. one He could separate completely from his “zealousness for the Law.” As you read the two sermons of Peter you see this Jewish aspect. See the method by which God had to get Peter to go to Cornelius?—a special vision three times repeated. See the church taking him to task for “eating with Gentiles” (Acts 11 :2)--not for preaching to them; they knew the Gentiles should have the gospel--but on a lower plane, inferior to Jews. They thought this new thing would be like the favored place the Jews had in the Old Testament or even in the times of Jesus—”sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” “and not to cast the children’s bread to dogs.” This “eating with Gentiles” was the same thing Paul had to condemn Peter about in Galatians 2, showing how little impression the vision had on Peter. Read the minutes of the first church council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15. Read the agitations in verses I and 2: “no small dissension” over the keeping of the Law to be saved, and the one Jewish rite of circumcision to be saved. Verse 7: “much disputing.” They got the slim concession from Jerusalem, not to put the yoke on the Gentiles. The Jews still had it. “Abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, things strangled and fornication” (Acts 15:29). No solving of the real problem of Law and grace, just a concession to keep the peace. Paul at Corinth later set aside the “meat offered to idols” (I Corinthians 8:4-13). But this shows that the church at Jerusalem was distinctively Jewish and was observing the Law of Moses. Gentiles were not admitted. In fact, the apostles at that time preached only to Jews (Acts 11: 1 9f).

You cannot read Acts and conceive of any of the twelve apostles or anyone else from the church at Jerusalem writing Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, or Colossians. They were too steeped in Judaism, Law, and legalism. Observe the first church council at Jerusalem, 14 years after Pentecost, still requiring circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses, to be saved. They absolved the Gentiles finally “after much disputing” from this “yoke of bondage,” but not Jews. See Galatians 2:3-5, at this same conference where they tried to make Paul have Titus follow the Law.

The Jews at the Jerusalem church never forsook the Law of Moses, but kept up all the ceremonies and Jewish rites and required them to salvation. Note that they still kept the temple worship, and did until it was destroyed in 70 A.D.--Acts 2:46: “And they continued daily with one accord in the temple”; stated hours of prayer: 9:00 a.m., noon, 3:00 p.m.; so 3:1: “Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at (Rotherham—”for”) the hour of prayer being the ninth hour”; 10:9: Peter, when not in Jerusalem, still kept set times of prayer, on the housetop at the sixth hour, 12:00 noon. So it was still unlawful to eat with the Gentiles (10:28; 11:3).

During the last scenes at Jerusalem in Acts, the condition is still unchanged. Acts 21:18-30 shows that they were “all zealous for the law.” And James gave the wrong advice to Paul to take the charges of a Nazarite vow to placate the Jews, but it failed.

No, none of these could have written the great treatise on justification by faith. God needed a different kind of man. And even he had to be shaken to the deeps by the personal vision of the glorified Christ. Then gone for good his Judaism (like the pale morning starlight before the rising of the sun). God must select a new “master-builder.”

D. Neither was Paul called, ordained, or commissioned by the 12 at Jerusalem. Paul defends the utter absolute independence of his apostolic commission from all his predecessors, as we shall see in Galatians 1 and 2. The church didn’t give Paul his message, his gospel; but the church got her gospel from Paul. He nowhere addresses his messages from the church, but to the church. He didn’t owe his message to the church, but the church owed its message to Paul. Hence the great criticism of the Judaizers who dogged the footsteps of Paul. He was too freelance; he had no letters of commendation from Jerusalem (II Corinthians 3:1-5). They could not forgive him for his freedom and independence. They felt that Jerusalem was everything, and as the mother church, had absolute authority, and all ordinations, etc., should emanate from there.

In Galatians 1:1 we read: “Paul an apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.” So it is stated in most of his epistles: “Paul a called apostle by the will of God” (As I Corinthians 1 : 1, etc.). When at Antioch, in a prayer meeting with Barnabas and others (Acts 13:1-4), Luke says: “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.’ “Paul says, in Galatians 1: “I conferred not with flesh and blood,” and “in conference they added nothing to me.” Paul’s commission was not from church council or human wisdom, but directly from God. This was the sore spot to the Judaizers. Paul was not one of the 12. Where then did he get his authority? This caused him to have to continually defend his apostleship, “by my direct commission from Christ” (oft repeated, as in Galatians 1: 1), and “by the power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit engifting me” (I Corinthians 2:4);

Neither did Paul receive his commission from Peter, as the first Pope. Paul says: “Those who were apostles before me.” The Catholic Church would have “Peter have the pre­eminence, making him superior in every way, holding the primacy over all others as the first Pope appointed by Christ. That Peter was more than their equal; but their prince, monarch, sovereign and exercised jurisdiction over all the rest. That Peter was the only Vicar of Christ upon the earth.” Peter never claimed this for himself. “He calls himself an elder.” He was sent on commission from the twelve as a legate, not a pontificate. Anyway, he couldn’t be a Pope today, for he was married. Paul says: “In notning was he behind the very chiefest of the apostles” (II Corinthians 11:5; 1 2: Il). Paul didn’t get his gospel from Peter. but Peter got his from Paul (11 Peter 3:15, 16). There was no seniority of the apostles over Paul, because of favorite positions as the twelve original apostles. Paul could rebuke Peter to the face at Antioch when “he walked not uprightly according to truth of the gospel.” All of this shows that Peter was not the infallible Vicar of Christ, nor did he hold supremacy over Paul.

E. Paul’s unique apostleship springs from his unique call directly by Christ, with a direct independent commission as Christ’s apostle or “chosen vessel.”

Paul’s very conversion was unique. Was any so arrested since? He was not saved as a result of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, nor in the Jewish capital, but near a Gentile city, by a direct intervention of Jesus Christ (Acts 9). Christ then sent him to an obscure disciple in Damascus for instructions and baptism. How many does God thus save by a direct and personal appearance of Christ and great, visible attending signs? Many try to say Paul was sun-stricken that day, but he was Son-stricken. Others say he had a form of epilepsy. May God give us a lot more of that disease if it can transform bigoted. Christ-hating persecutors into Pauls. Festus said he was crazy--a new kind of wonderful insanity. 

The commission that Jesus gave with the conversion of Paul was unique. In Acts 9:15 we read: “The Lord said unto him.... For he is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings and the children of Israel.” In 22:14, 15, Paul tells us more that was said: “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.” He adds more, in Acts 26:16: “1 have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee,” (later in Arabia, as in Galatians 1). He adds: “Gentiles unto whom I now send thee.” Note that Christ tells us why He appeared personally to Paul on the Damascus Road. Here is personal, direct commissioning by Christ, to make Paul two things in particular: a minister (Greek. literally, “under rower”--Adam Clarke: “One who is under the guidance and authority of another”; so Paul was to be under the sole authority of Jesus Christ), and a witness of both the things seen and of the future revelations Christ would give to him. He was sent to the Gentiles in particular, though also to Israel. (See also Acts 22:21.) Hence he calls himself “a called apostle” or “an apostle by calling” (leave out the lame, italicized “to be” of the A.V.). Compare Romans 1:1-5. In I Timothy 2:7 we read that he was “ordained an apostle.”

Most important to our premise. Paul defines this calling to apostleship as the “commital of a dispensation to him.”

“Yea, even the filling up in his body of the sufferings of Christ for the churches’ sake.” These are the most important Scriptural proofs of our major premise. Each should be studied carefully and digested fully. These comprise Paul’s own claims to uniqueness.

Three distinct times Paul says that “A dispensation is given me, or committed to me” (Colossians 1:25; Ephesians 3:1,2; I Corinthians 9: 16, 17). The word dispensation is from the Greek “oikonomian,” which equals a stewardship, administration, from the idea of the economy of a household.

In a unique way Paul filled up two things--”the word of God” and “what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the church.” Sufferings here is not the Greek word for the passion of Christ, His atonement; He bore that alone. But it speaks of ministerial sufferings (Colossians 1:24); “care of all the churches” (II Corinthians 11:28). So A.V. “afflictions of Christ” is a good translation.

Paul calls himself the “master-builder” (I Corinthians 3:10), who “laid the foundation”--Greek, arkiteckton--the architect. To him was revealed the whole plan of the building and laying the foundation, and he could warn, “Let every man take heed how he builds on it.” Four other times Paul declares that this position is according to the grace of God given unto him. The idea is always “special grace” (Romans 15:15; 12:3; Galatians 2:9;Ephesians 3:2), in relationship to his having the dispensation given to him. He knew he didn’t take this office of chief architect of stewardship upon himself, but by “special grace given unto him.”

Paul calls himself “minister to the Gentiles” (Ephesians 3:7; Romans 15:16, 18); “a teacher of the Gentiles (I Timothy 2:7; II Timothy 1:11), where he also calls himself an advance herald (Greek “kerux”).

In line with this is the term by which Paul designates himself, “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11: 13), and adds, “I magnify (glorify, honor) mine office.”

Twice Paul speaks of the gospel as being put in his trust (I Thessalonians 2:4; I Timothy 1:11). Thus he could speak of being “a debtor to the Romans” (Romans 1:14, 15), and includes all others. So, “necessity is laid upon me; woe is me if I preach not the gospel” (I Corinthians 9: 1 6).

There is one more important declaration by Paul which is double in aspect: his unique position as a ministering priest to offer up the Gentiles, and his presentation of the bride, the church, to Christ (Romans 15: 16): II Corinthians II:

These two figures present the greatest special grace give unto Paul.

Let us look at a literal translation of this important portion in Romans. Conybeare states: “Because of that gift of grace (special grace) which God bestowed upon me that I should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, serving in the glad tidings of God, that I might present the Gentiles to God, as a priest presents an offering, a sacrifice well pleasing unto Him hallowed by the working of the Holy Spirit.” So Paul says, “I have somewhat I could boast about.” Paul was not merely an apostle, or one of the twelve, but a chosen vessel holding the highest position in the body of Christ, and this portion shows it. The Greek word for minister here is “Ieitourges”--”a ministering priest who offers a sacrifice.” So Paul was as a ministering priest bringing the Gentiles as a sacrifice to God, offering them up as an acceptable sacrifice to God in the place of Israel, now cut off. This he says he does by his glad tidings message, his gospel, especially of free grace.

It is this offering up of the Gentiles by Paul’s gospel which made the Gentiles acceptable, through the the hallowing by the working of the Holy Spirit. When the church is raptured, the Gentiles will no longer have this special Pauline blessing of free offering and favored place, but will be cut off, and the natural branch will again be grafted in (Romans 11), the Gentiles again being blessed only through the Jews. Then Paul will present this Gentile bride (Acts 15:14), but made up of all nations (for there is neither Jew nor Gentile), to Jesus Christ as a chaste virgin (II Corinthians 11:2). Paul is a unique apostle indeed.

All of these Scriptures surely prove the unique place Paul holds in the New Testament, and go far to prove our major premise: “Paul is the revelator to the church.” He is the unique apostle to the Gentiles, with a dispensation committed unto him, put in trust with the gospel which he therefore can rightly call “my gospel.” From the thirteenth chapter of Acts he fills the scene. The twelve disappear except for a few references to the head three. In Acts 12:17 we read: “And Peter departed and went to another place. This is the last we read of him in the history of Acts, except for James’ reference to him in Acts 15. We don’t rightly know just where he went or what he did. Luke, the inspired historian, passes over his labors. All we know is that he wrote his epistles from Babylon. The clear indication is that God shifts all the church responsibility from Jerusalem, and “the twelve,” to Antioch and the apostle to the Gentiles. Acts is taken up with his flaming missionary work, spreading the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum (Romans 15:18, 19). And when the sacred history of the early church closes with Paul in chains, we find the “word of God not bound.” All the great churches over the known world owe their start and founding to the labors of Paul, except Jerusalem and Rome (as far as is recorded). What a debt we owe this man! No wonder he could say, “Be ye imitators of me” (I Corinthians 4:16; 11:1,andPhilippians 3:17).

F. Paul’s defence of his own unique apostleship and gospel is clearly outlined in Galatians I and 2.                                                

This portion in Galatians I and 2 goes far to prove our basic syllogism: “Paul is the revelator to the church, and only unto Paul was committed the complete church revelation.” Here is Paul’s own defence of his  unique position, and we do well to study it very carefully as our final proof of our major premise.

From a consideration of Acts 13:42-49; 14:1, and the whole book of Galatians, it can be seen that Paul was well received in the region of Galatia, except for some Jewish opposition, which turned them against Paul. These Jewish messengers from Jerusalem evilly affect them, introduced another gospel, until Paul “marveled” at their soon removal, and travailed, that Christ could be formed anew in them, etc. These emissaries from Jerusalem seemed to have much on their side; hence their success. They came from the mother church, were sent personally by the original twelve, bearing letters of commendation, seemed to have the Scriptures on their side (as only the Old Testament was then in existence), and could accuse Paul of forsaking Moses (Acts 16:4). Paul could wish them “cut off who trouble you” (Galatians 5:12).

Here then is the setting, the backdrop, of this urgent epistle in which Paul must defend his authority as an apostle, and his gospel. We can but outline the 28 ways in which Paul defends his authority and absolute independence from all human sources, as to his apostleship and gospel:

(1) Paul, an apostle not of men (Greek “apo”--from) as to source (1:1);

(2) Neither by (“dia”) through man as to its transmission (1:1);

(3) But through (instrumental case) Jesus Christ (1:1);

(4) And God the Father (same instrumental case) (1:1);

(5) Who raised him from the dead. His detractors placed Paul as coming on the scene too late to be an apostle; but Paul places his apostleship as from the risen Christ personally, here and everywhere else (1:1);

(6) His gospel so exclusive it could not be altered in anyway, or eternal damnation is assured (1:7-9). Starting with 1:6, Paul forbids three kinds of perversion of the gospel of Christ which he gave them: (i) ‘‘hetron euaggelion”--another or contrary gospel, a different kind of a gospel (1:6); (ii) “a par euaggelion”--a competitive gospel, alongside (1:9); (iii) “metastrepsal to euaggelion”--a perverted gospel. All three are worse than useless; they damn the ones accepting them and devote to judgment those who preach them. Paul is emphatic and dogmatic; no other gospel is possible other than the one he preached to them;

(7) His whole ministry was in the sight of God, and not as men-pleasing or placating (1: 1 O)--no doubt one of their accusations;

(8) His gospel was not of any human devising (1: 11), “after men” (Greek “kata”), “according to,” after human fashioning or devising:

(9) His gospel was not “from men” as to transmission; no man gave it to Paul (1:12);

(10) His gospel did not come to him by human study (1:12); he was not taught it;

(11) His gospel came to him as a direct revelation of Jesus Christ (1:12); there was no human agency at all-his own or others’;

(1 2) It could not have come to him from his early training (1: 1 3, 14), as his hatred for Christians, and his zealousness for the Law, proved;

(13) His apostleship and gospel were by God’s choice of him before he was born (1:15, 16);

(14) To show his utter independence, “he immediately conferred not with flesh and blood” for confirmation or ordination (1:16);

(15) He didn’t go up to Jerusalem, the mother church, for ordination, to the senior apostles (1: 17):

(1 6) Instead, he went into Arabia, to get his gospel,( 1:17); here is where, for three years, by revelation of Jesus Christ, he got his gospel:

(1 7) To further show his independence he spent only fifteen days with the apostle Peter (I : 1 8)--not long enough to get his gospel “straightened out”:

1 8) He didn’t even see the rest of the “college of apostles,” only Peter and James; so there was was no consensus of apostolic authority to enhance his gospel (1:19):

(1 9) Instead of heading for Jerusalem, he went in the opposite direction--Syria and Cilicia (1:21):

(20) In fact, he was “unknown by face to the churches of Judaca” (1:22):

(21) Paul further shows a lapse of fourteen years and no intercourse with the church in Jerusalem (2: 1);

(22) He did not then go to Jerusalem at their invitation, nor his own will, but by revelation (2:2);

(23) Instead of them enlightening Paul, he made known

unto them “the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles” (2:2), the only place they could get it:

(24)    Furthermore, those who seemed to have a reputation. “be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me” (2:6); but Paul added something to them (2:2):

(25)  In fact, Paul withstood the whole apostolate at Jerusalem against their desire to compromise the gospel of free grace from admixture with Law, about circumcising Titus (2:3-5);                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

(26) Paul stood absolutely alone against the combined pressure of his own companions and the Jerusalem church, that the “truth of the gospel might remain” (2:5, 10-14): “even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulations Greek “hypocrisy”):

(27) Even the whole church at Jerusalem recognized Paul’s absolute independence and apostolic authority as the apostle to the Gentiles (2:7-9; cf. Acts 15);

(28) Paul’s public condemnation and correction of the apostle Peter at Antioch. for hypocrisy in distinguishing, and separation from. Gentiles (2:11-18) shows apostolic authority as Paul rebukes publicly even the head pillar of Jerusalem.

So Paul, like Moses, stands alone in the gap. when everyone else is drifting from the “truth of the gospel” and “not walking straightfootedly.” and stops the defection. But it proves our syllogism very graphically. Paul is the revelator to the church, and only unto Paul was the complete revelation of church truth given.

II.“Some Concrete Illustrations of Errors Taught as Church Truths Because of the Ignoring of Paul’s Unique Apostleship”

We shall select but a few of the many that could be cited. How often has the assertion been made, “It is in the Bible:

therefore it is gospel for us.” The church has been saddled with all kinds of contrary and farfetched duties,

commandments, and prohibitions that God never intended for us, but which constitute “another gospel.” Put them to this test: ‘‘Does Paul teach them?’’: if not, then they do not constitute church doctrine.

A.    The Number and Spiritual Significance of the Ordinances

How varied are the teachings of men on this subject. The Catholic Church adds five more to the two recognized ordinances: namely, confirmation (taking the initiated into the church membership), penance (payment by the penitent for post-baptismal sins), confession to the priest, holy orders (the Catholic hierarchy), marriage (only by the priest), and extreme unction (only by the priest, to usher the departed Catholic into eternity and guarantee his salvation). So they make seven ordinances. Paul nowhere teaches the other five, nor does he ever make any of the seven a means of grace: neither does he teach baptismal salvation, nor transubstantiation (transforming the wafer and the wine into the literal body and blood of Christ).

There are others who make the ordinances three, adding feetwashing. Sonic, like the Quakers, have no ordinances, saying every time we eat or bathe we are observing spiritual ordinances. Ultra-dispensatiorialists have but one ordinan cc. the Lord’s Supper, denying that baptism is for our dispensation.

The apostle Paul gives two ordinances for the church and explains only these two as to their spiritual significance. He explains the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11:23-33, and baptism, in Romans 6:1-13.

B. Feetwashing as an Ordinance Tested

It is interesting here, as in the other errors, in the light of our major premise, to see that all the groups who teach feetwashing as an ordinance, never try to build their doctrine upon Paul, but upon the gospels only. We shall not here discuss the real lesson. Jesus was trying to impress upon the minds of His disciples, humility: “If I, your Lord and Master, wash your feet, you ought also to wash one another’s feet.”

Nor shall we go into the lack of the one vital requirement to exalt any church observance into the sacred order of an ordinance; that is, the deeply spiritual significance, as in the two recognized ordinances, of a vital union of life with Christ in the ordinance. We see this in the two recognized ordinances. In baptism, there is the wonderful significance of being baptized into His death, burial, and resurrection. So now we are in Him and He is in us, in living union--a baptism into His very body, and drinking into His very Spirit (Romans 6:1-13; I Corinthians 12:13). In the Lord’s Supper, there is the spiritual sharing of the very body and blood of Christ as we partake of the elements, called by Paul, in I Corinthians 10:16, “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (sharing) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (sharing) of the body of Christ?” Where is this communion (sharing) in the life, the nature, the very essence of Christ is feet washing?

But, primarily, where does Paul teach feetwashing as an ordinance? He plainly teaches baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but nowhere does he teach feetwashing; so it is not an ordinance. He mentions it but once, but gives no spiritual significance nor command of observance. In I Timothy 5: 10. a widow was to be put on their list or roll: i.e., to be supported by the church as though working in it if she were “well reported of for good works: if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, etc.,” or. in other words, “given to hospitality.” Paul is laying down no ordinance. If so, then so is lodging strangers and bringing up children. If it were an ordinance, it would be no condition for “the list.” since all widows would have been doing it. So feetwashing is not an ordinance since Paul doesn’t teach it, and the greater majority of the church has been right for 2,000 years in not so observing it.

C.    Unknown Tongues Tested

Another teaching finding great stress these days, needing treatment by our basic syllogism, is the speaking in tongues as an infallible sign and absolute necessity for the charismatic impartation of the Holy Spirit. There is also the teaching of some that without tongues you are not even in possession of the Holy Spirit.

Now, if true, this is a very serious doctrine. It is finding an even larger following. Most pentecostal or Holiness groups teach it, plus the new Charismatic movement among many denominations. Many great scholars have taught against it. In fact, some, in their zeal to discount it, have gone way too far in the opposite direction and denied that there is any real deeper work of grace in the believer, such as a filling with the Holy Spirit. Many of the great scholars in the church have denied not only that there is any gift of tongues now in the church, but that there are any of the sign gifts of the Spirit still active. They confine the sign gifts to the apostles and contend that they were to cease with their deaths. The only proof they use is I Corinthians 13:8-10: “Whether there be tongues they shall cease.” This is poor exegesis, as they try to use the next verses as proof of the time of their ceasing:

“When that which is perfect is come.” They say, “That is the New Testament.” But Paul tells us the time when tongues are to cease and “the perfect is come in”; it will be when “the in part is done away,” when “I shall no longer see through a glass darkly, or know in part, when I get my full adulthood, when all my knowledge will be face-to-face and as perfect as I am known.” That didn’t take place at the conclusion of the New Testament, but will at the rapture. That is when the gifts shall be withdrawn as no more needed. But until the rapture of the saints and their perfecting into the image of Christ, we are still in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and His gifts are still in the church. (More of this later as we consider the gifts of the Spirit.)

But is the speaking in unknown tongues the necessity and the evidence that the believer has been “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” received the infilling of the Holy Spirit,” or the “charistmatic baptism of the Spirit?” This is an important doctrine if it is true, and needs very clear Scriptural teaching. And in the light of our syllogism, Paul should be very plain

here. But right here Paul is strangely silent on any such teaching, but, contrariwise, teaches the opposite. Since those teaching this idea are very dogmatic and emphatic, no tongues, no baptism of the Holy Spirit, it should be clearly taught, not only elsewhere, but by Paul. It shouldn’t be taught from apostolic experience, but from apostolic epistles. in fact, they find it very hard to circumvent Paul’s stringent regulation of tongues in I Corinthians 14, and his emphatic declaration in the Greek of I Corinthians 12:29, 30: “All do not speak in tongues.” It isn’t for all. They also find difficulty with his belittling and regulation of tongues in chapter 14. But here, just note: Where does Paul teach that tongues is the infallible evidence of the Holy Spirit’s charismatic operation in the believer? The answer is, you can’t find it in Paul’s writings, so it isn’t a church doctrine. (See our chapter on the gifts.)

D. The Partial Rapture Theory Tested

There are a great many errors taught as church truth which could be examined at this time by our postulate, but many of them will appear in the true light as we study Paul’s gospel as a complete system of church doctrine. These are given only as examples.

There have been many very specious arguments advanced to scare folks into sanctification or to enforce a strained position of doctrine. So this one is used, that part of the church is to go up in the rapture at the coming of Christ for His own, and the rest of the church must go through the great tribulation. The usual teaching is that only the spirit-filled saints are in the bride of Christ and will be raptured; the rest of the church is not in the bride of Christ and will have to go into the tribulation. Almost without exception, this false idea of a partial rapture is built upon an erroneous interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25. Without this portion, no theory of a partial rapture would ever have been devised.

See how they built it, not on Paul, but on a prophecy of Christ regarding the nation of Israel. These same folks wouldn’t think of applying the words of Jesus, in the same sermon: “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken by the Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, then flee to the mountains,” to the church, but will borrow anything else which seems to fit their idea and apply it to the church, ignoring Paul. Does Paul teach a partial rapture? That is the real question here. If not, then it isn’t so. Whatever Matthew 25 does teach, it doesn’t teach a partial rapture for the church. Paul is the revelator to the church. Where then does he teach a partial rapture? Certainly it is an important truth if it is so. Paul not only doesn’t teach it, he teaches against it. Nowhere does he divide the body of Christ into two bodies--a bride made up of only the spirit-filled (with oil), and of the plain ones who, for lack of oil, are not in the bride. There isn’t the slightest intimation in all his epistles of a partial rapture, Paul commands the infilling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), but doesn’t enforce it with any such idea, that if they refuse they will not be raptured. The only verse from Paul the proponents of the partial rapture have ever alighted upon is the last verse of Hebrews 9: “Unto them which look for him shall he appear the second time apart from sin (or a sin offering) unto salvation (to complete their redemption).” They claim only the spirit-filled are looking for him. Are they? Let us examine this. The Greek literally is: “Unto them which are expectantly awaiting” (Greek doesn’t just include the idea of looking, for in Romans 8:19, 23 it is used of creation: “The earnest expectation of creation waiteth the apocalypse of the Son of God.”) Is only intelligent creation meant here? No, for they are mentioned before, the sons of God. Creation isn’t looking, but it is expectantly waiting. So Paul uses it of the carnal Corinthians (I Corinthians 1:7): “Waiting for the “apokalupsin” of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet Paul doesn’t use it as a club to scare them into sanctification. He uses the argument of their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. Modern holiness preachers would have used it as a club. If any church needed the daylights scared out of them, they did. Either Paul missed a good opportunity, or there isn’t any partial rapture. The whole body of the redeemed are waiting the final appearing of Christ, this time without a sin offering, so that He can complete their redemption. For this all saints wait. For our redemption is not yet completed until “the redemption of our bodies,” and that awaits His coming (Romans 8:23).

There are only two plain, complete portions in the whole Bible which reveal the rapture. Both are by Paul. If they teach a partial rapture, then whatever my own wishes might be, I must believe in a partial rapture. If, though, there is not any intimation in these two portions where the details and order of the rapture are given, I must deny that there is any such church teaching. Read very carefully these two portions; see if you can find a single intimation of a partial rapture:

I Corinthians 15:50-53: Certainly there is no intimation here of any partial rapture: “We shall all be changed, in an atom of time--the twinkling of an eye.” HE is talking to Corinthians, who were accused of him, of being yet carnal; but of them he says: “We shall all be changed instantaneously, dead and living saints.”

I Thessalonians 4:13-18: Here is the complete order given. the clearest light on the rapture. I defy anyone to find a partial rapture here. If there is one, don’t you think this is the place for Paul to give it’? “The dead in Christ arise first.” Which dead? Only the sanctified? No: all of them. Then “we which are alive and left over.’ is the Greek. Who is that? Only the sanctified? No; all the left-over ones, the living saints.

There is no partial rapture of the saints, for the simple reason that Paul nowhere teaches it. If there is, he, as the great trustee of this dispensation, should have given it. Wouldn’t it be strange if he gave all the rest of church doctrine except its final destiny?

Back to Index