A Case For Paul

By Christian Anarchist

The Apostle Paul was considered an

apostle who did many good deeds for
Christs church. He is known for
writing half of the New Testament and
his testimony as a former persecutor
of the Christians to a convert in Christ
is considered one of the many
powerful stories of history in
Christendom. However, Paul has
recently come under attack by critics
and skeptics of his apostleship. Due to
the rise of liberalism in the West and
the influence of Islam, Muslims and
liberal Christians doubt if Paul ever

was a true apostle. They claim that

Paul was the one who invented
Christianity as it is today and that
Jesus and his disciples taught
something very different in contrast to
what we see today in Christianity.
Thus, we have two different opposing
views against the traditional view of
Paul. There is the Different
Perspectives of Paul view which come
from the Christians and the Muslims
who argue that Paul invented
Christianity. I will do my best to
address both of these at the same
time with these arguments and laying
down reliable information with
sources.
There will be little to no sources
used from the outside since we will
mostly use the New Testament and
treat it as a historical document in the

examination of the life of the early

apostolic church. However, we will still
do our best to touch on the early
church fathers to show how
historically, we have Paul being
involved with the other disciples.
While doing so, we will also go over
any objections.

Biblical Evidence
People will claim that Paul was one
who contradicted the disciples
according to the New Testament and
that he opposed the Old Testament
law. They even claim that Paul was in
conflict with the apostles and that Paul
tried to convert the disciples to his
beliefs. This is actually nothing more

than a silly assertion with no evidence

and is very contrary to the obvious
when we read the New Testament. So
let us examine the passages in
regards to the New Testament to
prove that Paul was teaching the
same things that the disciples taught
as well as affirm his teachings by the
means of the Old Testament.
Paul talks about the doctrine of
justification through faith alone in
his epistles like Ephesians 2:8-9 and
Romans 5:1. So while this is true, do
any of the other disciples disagree
with this? Whenever we look towards
the non-Pauline epistles, we see this
to be the case. An example is from
Peter in Acts 15:11. The context is at
the Council of Jerusalem where the
Judaizers heretical teaching is
condemned. What was the teaching?

We will get into that later. However,

Acts 15:11 says: But we believe that
through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as
they. The we is referring to the
Church and all who are in the council,
which includes Paul, Barnabas and
James. Speaking of James, Jesus
brother, we see him affirming the Old
Testament passage that supports faith
alone when we see him quote Genesis
15:6 in James 2:23. We also see Jesus
talk about it in John 5:24, but we also
know that Jesus parable in Luke 18:914 speaks a great deal on this. We see
that a Pharisee prays to God and
brags about his good deeds. Yet, a tax
collector prayed and humbly asked
God to forgive him out of faith. Jesus
would then say the following in the
14th verse of this chapter: I tell you,

this man went down to his house

justified rather than the other: for
every one that exalteth himself shall
be abased; and he that humbleth
himself shall be exalted. The man
Jesus mentions first here that went
home justified was indeed the tax
collector who simply prayed and
admitted he was a sinner. Not the
Pharisee. So again, further proof that
Paul was not alone in his teachings of
Sola Fide.
Next, we will deal with the Council
of Jerusalem since this was an early
church council mentioned in the bible
where Paul, James and Peter are
present. A certain group of heretics
were dealt with at this time known as
the Judaizers. Their heretical
teachings were condemned during the
apostolic age, but Acts 15 gives us an

insight in the bible as to which one is

condemned during this council. These
Jewish Christians are talked about in
Acts 15:5-6 when it says: But there
rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees which believed, saying,
that it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them to
keep the Law of Moses. And the
apostles and elders came together for
to consider of this matter. Therefore,
this was tied to the heresy where
people affirmed that you needed to be
circumcised and keep the Law of
Moses in order to be saved. So the
apostles and elders of the church
came together to discuss the matter.
If you read the entire context in this
chapter that shows the council, you
see James is in charge of the Council
since he is the bishop of Jerusalem.

We also see Paul and Peter are there

and they are there in agreement with
each other concerning this matter. So
we see here that these three were
able to agree with each other at a
council that condemned a heresy,
which some critics of Paul claim James
and Peter believed. In order for a
consistent argument to be seen, they
would have to work out what exact
difference was going on here between
the two disciples and the heretics
known as the Judaizers.
To point more on the council, let us
observe something that happened to
Peter earlier on in the story. In Acts
10:11-16, we read of Peter receiving a
vision from God in which he sees the
following: And saw heaven opened,
and a certain vessel descending unto
him, as it had been a great sheet knit

at the four corners, and let down to

the earth: Wherein were all
manner of fourfooted beasts of
the earth, and wild beasts, and
creeping things, and fowls of the
air. And there came a voice to
him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But
Peter said, not so, Lord; for I have
never eaten any thing that is common
or unclean. And the voice spake unto
him again the second time, what God
hath cleansed, that call not thou
common. This was done thrice: and
the vessel was received up again into
heaven. Let us examine this real
quick in light of some of the claims
that Peter was one who kept and
practiced the Jewish law. If that is the
case, why does God reveal this vision
to Peter in such a manner? Why would
God tell Peter to eat the forbidden

foods that went against the dietary

laws of the Mosaic Law if Peter was
supposedly worshipping a God who
wanted people to obey the law? This
proposes a big problem to the
skeptics.
So what was my point with that?
We see that while this happens, Peter
comments in Acts 15:7-11 and says
the following: Men and brethren, ye
know how that a good while ago God
made choice among us, that the
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the
word of the gospel, and believe. And
God, which knoweth the hearts, bare
them witness, giving them the Holy
Ghost, even as he did unto us; And
put no difference between us and
them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to
put a yoke upon the neck of the

disciples, which neither our fathers

nor we were able to bear? But we
believe that through the grace of
the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be
saved, even as they. So there we
go. They will be saved merely based
upon the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, not the deeds of the law,
according to Peter.
Another thing to look at is what
Jesus has to say about Paul. In Acts 9,
we see a story of Jesus interaction
involving Saul (Paul) of Tarsus. In
verses 3-9, we read the following:
And as he journeyed, he came near
Damascus: and suddenly there shined
round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a
voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me? And he
said, Who art thou, Lord? And the

Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou

persecutest: it is hard for thee to
kick against the pricks. And he
trembling and astonished said, Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do?
And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and
go into the city, and it shall be told
thee what thou must do. And the men
which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but
seeing no man. And Saul arose from
the earth; and when his eyes were
opened, he saw no man: but they led
him by the hand, and brought him
into Damascus. And he was three
days without sight, and neither did
eat nor drink. So notice in the text
that instead of Paul rejecting Jesus, he
accepts him as Lord by even asking
him in his proper name: LORD, what
wilt thou have me to do? So Paul

does not show any hostility to Jesus

after this point. Then in verses 10-17,
we see a disciple named Ananias who
is visited by Jesus and is told to do
something the skeptics wouldnt
imagine Jesus say: And there was a
certain disciple at Damascus, named
Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a
vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I
am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto
him, Arise, and go into the street
which is called Straight, and enquire
in the house of Judas for one called
Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he
prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a
man named Ananias coming in, and
putting his hand on him, that he
might receive his sight. Then Ananias
answered, Lord, I have heard by
many of this man, how much evil
he hath done to thy saints at

Jerusalem: And here he hath

authority from the chief priests to
bind all that call on thy name. But
the Lord said unto him, Go thy way:
for he is a chosen vessel unto me,
to bear my name before the
Gentiles, and kings, and the
children of Israel: For I will shew
him how great things he must
suffer for my name's sake. And
Ananias went his way, and entered
into the house; and putting his hands
on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared
unto thee in the way as thou
camest, hath sent me, that thou
mightest receive thy sight, and
be filled with the Holy Ghost.
How can any skeptic say or attempt to
claim that a disciple of Jesus would
make an error here? Even Jesus for

that matter, who was revealed unto

Paul and Ananias. To some who may
think Ananias could be just some
random stranger, scholars and early
church tradition have noted Ananias
to be one of the seventy disciples that
is mentioned in Luke 10. So Ananias
did have connections with knowing
and following the teachings of Jesus
and his twelve original apostles.
Finally, to confirm that Paul was an
apostle of Jesus Christ who the other
apostles approved of, we read in
Galatians of Paul talking about how he
met the apostles after his conversion.
In Galatians 2:6, Paul says that the
apostles during their meetings
added nothing to me. This is
indicating that Paul was not rebuked
or corrected by the twelve apostles. In
Galatians 2:9, we actually see some of

the apostles fellowship with Paul:

And when James, Cephas, 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. So not only do they
fellowship, but Paul notes that he and
Barnabas were to go preach to the
Gentiles (the heathen) and James,
Peter and John were to preach to the
Jews (the circumsion). However, in
Galatians 1:18, we read this: Then
after three years I went up to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode
with him fifteen days. So after three
years of Paul being a Christian, he
went to visit Peter in Jerusalem.
Whats important to note is the word

see and how this is actually a bad

translation. The greek word used is
historeo, which is where we get our
word history from. And historeo
means, according to Thayers Greek
Lexicon, is to gain knowledge of by
visiting. So Paul was gaining
knowledge and information from Peter
for fifteen days on their beliefs. So we
see further proof that Paul and the
apostles, especially Peter, agreed on
their beliefs and that Paul was not
against the teachings of Jesus, but
was in conformity to it.

Historical Evidence
Paul is not only written about in the
New Testament, but is written by other

authors during the early church

period. We will examine the early
historical claims of Pauls view of
apostleship. While most of the work is
from church fathers, we will quote a
couple of early Islamic commentators
who note the early view in Islam that
did view Paul as an apostle or follower
of Jesus. For now, let us begin.
One person who wrote about Paul
for a very good reason was Clement of
Rome. Clement was a secretary to the
Church of Rome who would speak on
behalf of the bishops at this time.
Clement travelled with and knew Paul
according to Philippians 4. In his only
surviving epistle to the Corinthians, he
says the following in Chapter 28-29:
Owing to envy, Paul also obtained
the reward of patient endurance, after
being seven times thrown into

captivity, compelled to flee,and

stoned. After preaching both in the
east and west, he gained the
illustrious reputation due to his faith,
having taught righteousness to the
whole world, and come to the
extreme limit of the west, and
suffered martyrdom under the
prefects. Thus was he removed from
the world, and went into the holy
place, having proved himself a
striking example of patience. Take up
the epistle of the blessed Apostle
Paul. What did he write to you at the
time when the gospel first began to
be preached? Truly, under the
inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to
you concerning himself, and Cephas,
and Apollos, because even then
parties had been formed among you.
So right here we see that Clement of

Rome viewed Paul as an apostle and

even went so far to say he was
blessed. If some of you doubt Paul
after this, know that Clement was in
Rome during the early apostolic time
and knows the history of how the
church at Rome was founded. More on
that will come later.
When examining Ignatius of
Antiochs writings, we see that he
would hold Paul as an apostle who
followed Jesus teachings. Ignatius
was a student of one of the 12
disciples named John, so he had what
the critics would call early apostolic
teachings. With that in line, what does
he say about Paul? In Chapter 4 of his
epistle to the Romans, he writes the
following: I do not, as Peter and
Paul, issue commandments unto you.
They were apostles So here is

more historical evidence that shows

the early view that Peter and Paul
were apostles from a man who was
taught by an apostle himself. Its also
interesting to note that Ignatius
viewed Pauls writings as authoritative
since he quoted the Pauline epistles
during lifetime. Ignatius was even
willing to be fed to the lions during his
martyrdom because of his faith and
theology based on the ENTIRE New
Testament writings as well as the Old
Testament.
Another student of John that is
much earlier is named Polycarp of
Smyrna. Not only was he a disciple of
John, but John even ordained him as a
bishop of Smyrna according to
Tertullian in his 32nd chapter to
Prescription Against Heretics: For
this is the manner in which the

apostolic churches transmit their

registers: as the church of Smyrna,
which records that Polycarp was
placed therein by John. Polycarp
unfortunately, like Clement, gave us
only one surviving writing of his in
history. In his epistle to the
Philippians, he writes the following in
Chapter 3: These things, brethren, I
write to you concerning
righteousness, not because I take
anything upon myself, but because ye
have invited me to do so. For neither
I, nor any other such one, can come
up to the wisdom of the blessed
and glorified Paul. He, when among
you, accurately and stedfastly
taught the word of truth in the
presence of those who were then
alive. And when absent from you, he
wrote you a letter, which, if you

carefully study, you will find to be

the means of building you up in
that faith which has been given
you, and which, being followed by
hope, and preceded by love towards
God, and Christ, and our neighbour, is
the mother of us all. For if anyone be
inwardly possessed of these graces,
he hath fulfilled the command of
righteousness, since he that hath love
is far from all sin. Polycarp also goes
on in Chapter 9 to categorize Paul
among the apostles, which included
his own teacher: I exhort you all,
therefore, to yield obedience to the
word of righteousness, and to
exercise all patience, such as ye have
seen [set] before your eyes, not only
in the case of the blessed Ignatius,
and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in
others among yourselves, and in

Paul himself, and the rest of the

apostles. [This do] in the assurance
that all these have not run in vain, but
in faith and righteousness, and
that they are [now] in their due place
in the presence of the Lord, with
whom also they suffered. For they
loved not this present world, but Him
who died for us, and for our sakes was
raised again by God from the dead.
To finally conclude Polycarps
statements as very early attestations
to what the church taught, we will go
over a quote from the same epistle in
Chapter 11: I am greatly grieved for
Valens, who was once a presbyter
among you, because he so little
understands the place that was given
him [in the Church]. I exhort you,
therefore, that ye abstain from
covetousness, and that ye be chaste

and truthful. Abstain from every form

of evil. For if a man cannot govern
himself in such matters, how shall he
enjoin them on others? If a man does
not keep himself from covetousness,
he shall be defiled by idolatry, and
shall be judged as one of the heathen.
But who of us are ignorant of the
judgment of the Lord? Do we not
know that the saints shall judge the
world? as Paul teaches. But I have
neither seen nor heard of any such
thing among you, in the midst of
whom the blessed Paul laboured,
and who are commended in the
beginning of his Epistle. For he boasts
of you in all those Churches which
alone then knew the Lord; but we [of
Smyrna] had not yet known Him. I am
deeply grieved, therefore, brethren,
for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom

may the Lord grant true repentance!

And be ye then moderate in regard to
this matter, and "do not count such as
enemies," but call them back as
suffering and straying members, that
ye may save your whole body. For by
so acting ye shall edify yourselves.
So to recap, Polycarp viewed Paul as
an apostle whose authority as one in
speech and writings was equal to that
of the other apostles, including John.
Irenaeus is another famous church
father who wrote a book that can be
considered the historic collection of
what the early church dealt with back
then. This work would come to be
known as Against Heresies. Irenaeus
was also influenced by Polycarps
preaching as a bishop in Smyrna. In
Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1, Irenaeus
makes the following note about Peter

and Pauls activity together: Matthew

also issued a written Gospel among
the Hebrews in their own dialect,
while Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome, and laying
the foundations of the Church. So
the foundations of the church in Rome
were the result of Peter AND Paul. In
Book 3, Chapter 3, Sections 2-3, we
read the following: Since, however, it
would be very tedious, in such a
volume as this, to reckon up the
successions of all the Churches, we do
put to confusion all those who, in
whatever manner, whether by an evil
self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by
blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings;
[we do this, I say,] by indicating that
tradition derived from the apostles, of
the very great, the very ancient,

and universally known Church

founded and organized at Rome
by the two most glorious
apostles, Peter and Paul. The
blessed apostles, then, having
founded and built up the Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the
office of the episcopate. Of this Linus,
Paul makes mention in the
Epistles to Timothy. So here we
see that not only were they preaching
together as recognized apostles, but
Peter AND Paul both ordained the first
bishop of Rome known as Linus.
I can go into the other sources that
attest to Paul as an apostle from early
church writings, but these will do for
now since these are about as early as
we can get without the bible. But in
order to deal with the finishing blow of
this writing, we will now deal with at

least the Muslim critics since the main

inspiration for this was due to an
argument I had with a Muslim
apologist who, for the sake of making
short reference to him, will be referred
to as the alias of Super Muslim.

Early Muslims Affirm Paul as an

Apostle
One thing about Super Muslims
view as a Muslim and the popular
western claim that he was a fake
apostle is showing signs of the
evolution of Islamic thought.
Originally, the Quran and Early Islamic
commentators viewed Paul as either
an apostle or one who was teaching
the exact teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Muslims today will probably

cringe at this, but we have no choice
but to display the truth in order to
dismiss the silly notion and idea. Let
us start by examining the Quran.
The verses will be from Surah 3
and 61 of the Quran here and as we
start with the verses, we will then
follow its logical conclusion based on
history. To make a side note for my
non-Muslim readers, I will be quoting
the Sahih International translation
which will use brackets for words that
arent found in the Arabic. So starting
with Surah 3:55 of the Quran, we read
the following: [Mention] when Allah
said, O Jesus, indeed I will take you
and raise you to Myself and purify you
from those who disbelieve and make
those who follow you [in
submission to Allah alone] superior

to those who disbelieve until the

Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is
your return, and I will judge between
you concerning that in which you used
to differ. So notice the key phrase is
that those who follow Jesus will be
superior to those who disbelieve. This
will be important later on when we
examine the early Islamic thought as
well as the contradictory beliefs of
modern Muslim apologists on this
matter. Lets focus on Surah 61:14
which tells us something even more
interesting: O you who have
believed, be supporters of Allah, as
when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to
the disciples, Who are my supporters
for Allah? The disciples said, We are
supporters of Allah. And a faction of
the Children of Israel believed and a
faction disbelieved. So We

supported those who believed

against their enemy, and they
became dominant. So Allah
supports those who believed against
their enemies and became dominant.
Now why is this important? If we are
to understand the modern Islamic
view that Pauls Christianity over ruled
the others, then according to Surah
61:14, Allah supported Paul. Because
Pauls view of Jesus became dominant.
However, did Paul follow Jesus as
indicated in Surah 3:55? According to
early Muslims, yes he did.
According to Islamic commentator
and scholar from the 13th century, AlQurtubi, he affirms that Paul was
among the rank of apostle and
disciple of Jesus: It was said that
this verse was revealed about the
apostles of Jesus, may peace and

blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq

stated that of the apostles and
disciples that Jesus sent (to preach)
there were Peter and Paul who went
to Rome. (1) So not only does he
say this, but he agrees with Ibn Ishaq,
an 8th century Muslim historian, that
Peter and Paul were both in the
category of apostles and disciples of
Jesus. However, Ibn Ishaq himself
didnt directly view Paul as a disciple
(which can leave room for view as an
apostle). Al-Qurtubi got his quote from
Ishaqs biography of Muhammad
which was entitled The Life of
Muhammad. Though the quote was
paraphrased, we can still grasp
something. In the biography, Ibn Ishaq
makes the following full statement:
Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent,
both disciples and those who

came after them, in the land were:

Peter the disciple and Paul with
him, (Paul belonged to the
followers and was not a disciple)
to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the
land of the cannibals; Thomas to the
land of Babel, which is in the land of
the east; Philip to Carthage which is
Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the
young men of the cave; James to
Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of
the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia
which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to
the land of the Berbers; Judah who
was not one of the disciples was put
in place of Judas (2). Note that Paul is
not viewed as a disciple, but is
categorized as a follower. The next
century would give rise to another
Islamic historian named Al-Tabari, who
makes the following statement:

Among the apostles, and the

followers who came after them
were the Apostle Peter and Paul who
was a follower and not an
apostle; they went to Rome (3).
Now that we have examined the
writings from Islamic sources, let us
take a look at a note that a scholar
leaves for us in his translation of AlTabaris work, The History of AlTabari, that was translated by scholar
Moshe Perlmann. In one of the foot
notes, Moshe notes the following on
what follower means: In Islamic
terms the messengers or apostles
pave the new path. Their work is
continued by the tabi'un, the
followers, members of the next
generations, who lead the Faithful
(4). So Moshe notes that Muslims
back then affirmed that Paul was a

follower of Jesus and his disciples

according to early Islamic thought. But
according to Al-Tabari in another
chapter, he notes the fate of Peter and
Paul: The Roman rulers, according to
the Christians, reigned over Palestine
from the ascension of Christ to the
age of the Prophet Muhammad. Abu
Ja'far says: They assert that after
Tiberius, Palestine and other parts of
Syria were ruled by Gaius, son of
Tiberius, for four years. He was
succeeded by another son, Claudius,
for fourteen years, following which
Nero ruled for fourteen years. He
slew Peter and crucified Paul
head down (5). If anybody is
familiar with any history, they will
know that Nero was considered one of
the most wicked and lawless type of
rulers that was to exist. Yet, along with

Peter, he crucified Paul according to

Al-Tabari. Why is this if according to
modern Muslim apologists, Paul was
preaching lawlessness and against the
Law? Perhaps it was teachings of the
law that got him killed. Paul talks
more about the law in his epistle to
the Romans than any of his epistles as
established in Romans 3:31, 5:20, 7:1,
7:7, 7:22, and 9:4.
So as a result, if we are to argue,
we either must say that according to
Islamic sources in the early days as
well as the Quran, Paul was either an
apostle of Jesus Christ or at least a
follower who affirmed Christs
teachings. If this is the case, then
Muslims need to bear with what Paul
taught since he is among the Apostles
and knows what they know about
salvation and the true faith that was

passed down from Jesus (or as the

Muslims call, Isa ibn Maryam, which
means Jesus, son of Mary).

Conclusion
So the conclusion I hope we all can
approach by the end of this
documentation is the following: Paul
was not only an apostle according to
the Bible, but that history itself affirms
the idea that Paul was just as much as
an apostle or follower of Christ as any
of the other 12 apostles were. So with
his in mind, I hope that you
understand that Paul was not antiJesus, but was for Jesus, even willing
to die for him like the other apostles
would. Amen.

Sources/Citations

1.) Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, 61:14.

2.) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of
Muhammad, trans. Alfred
Guillaume, [Oxford University
Press], p. 653.
3.) al-Tabari. The History of alTabari. Trans. Moshe Perlmann.
Vol. IV. p. 123

4.) Ibd., note 317

5.) Ibd. p. 126