Responses to the BSA post “Was Paul even an Apostle?” by Michael L Waddell. The bullet formatting in the first one is mine.
Luke, the author of Acts, loves Paul, but he loves the Paul he describes, not the Paul that Paul describes in his letters.
- Luke’s Paul is the most faithful of Jews, always going to the synagogue first in a new city, even when it’s proven hopeless a hundred times.
- Luke’s Paul never claims that we’re saved through Jesus’s death (a constant motif in Paul’s letters), but instead talks about how important it is to carefully follow the Law.
- Luke’s Paul only went to the Gentiles because Peter insisted he did so, because
- Luke’s Paul always agreed with the other apostles and never dissented in any way.
- Luke’s Paul could never have written a letter like Galatians – he never writes letters at all!
- And Luke’s Paul never refers to himself as an apostle, since he’s happy to subordinate himself to the Twelve.
In fact, if you hated Paul’s message, but your audience honored Paul, and you wanted to describe him in a way that completely defanged him and erased his distinctive teachings, you might describe him exactly the way Luke does.
Michael L Waddell‘s later response to the same post:
Responding to Paul Trejo: You’re spot on. In my view, if the 12 had claimed to have seen Jesus physically before he ascended, while Paul only saw a vision, it would have been an obvious weakness to Paul’s claim to apostleship. And since Paul vociferously argued against any claim that he was less of an apostle, I believe he would have mentioned it, if only to mitigate the damage. The impression I get from Paul’s letters is that his encounter with Christ was no less real or valid than anyone else’s, which implies that all encounters with the risen Jesus were visionary in nature.
Mark’s abrupt ending supports this, since there is no implication that anyone saw the risen Jesus before he ascended to heaven. Later, gospels increasingly insist that Jesus met with the Twelve physically, to the point that John’s gospel has an entire “doubting Thomas” pericope dedicated to convincing the reader of this. But this insistence would only be necessary if a competing claim were circulating. It would make sense if the encounters with Jesus were all originally thought to be visionary, but it later became necessary to refute the claim that the belief in the risen Christ was based on hallucinations.
From TaborBlog – Did Paul Make a Break with Peter, James, and the Jerusalem Apostles? July 13, 2021 by Dr. James Tabor.
As early as the letter of Galatians Paul makes it clear that these “so called pillars of the church”–referring by name to James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and John–meant nothing to him, in terms of vouching for, or certifying, the authenticity of his revelations from Jesus or his “gospel” as he called it. The book of Acts, written a generation later, tries to smooth over the tension, presenting a picture of harmony between Paul and Peter (see Acts 15), but Galatians 2 tells an entirely different story. In the end, as is plain from reading between the lines in Acts 21, when Paul makes his last visit to Jerusalem, that the underlying tension between Paul and James is irreconcilable–despite the author’s attempt to mute Paul (notice, he says nothing in reply to James!) and present a shaky agreement between them.
From Bart Ehrman’s book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene
Page 98 – Paul insists that God called him specifically to this task of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. It is interesting to see that Luke, who wants harmony at every point, claims that it was Peter who started the Gentile mission, before Paul (Acts 10-11). Moreover, as ‘we have seen, Peter and Paul are in complete harmony in the book of Acts when it comes to this Gentile mission (Acts 15). But not according to Paul. In his account, he and Peter have a rather nasty confrontation over just this issue in the city of Antioch (Gal. 2:11-
14).
Page 97 – Sometimes the differences between Paul’s self-portrait and the portrait in Acts involve the content of Paul’s message. According to Acts, for example, when Paul is speaking to a group of pagan philosophers in Athens, he tells them that they and all pagans worship many gods because they simply don’t know any better. But God is forgiving of this oversight and wants them to realize that he alone is to be worshiped. Now, having learned the truth, they can repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 17). It is interesting to contrast this with what Paul himself says about the pagan religions in his own writings. In his letter to the Romans Paul is quite blunt: pagans worship many gods not because they are ignorant. In fact, it is just the opposite: pagans know perfectly well there is only one God, and they’ve rejected that knowledge of God in order to worship other gods. Because they’ve known all along what they are doing, God is not at all forgiving of them, but is incensed and sends his wrath down upon them (Rom. 1:18-32).
Page 97 – There are discrepancies between the book of Acts and Paul’s own letters, for instance, with reference to Paul’s traveling itinerary. In the book of Acts, for example, we’re told that when Paul makes a trip to Athens after converting a number of people in the city of Thessalonica, he is completely alone: his companions Timothy and Silas do not accompany him (Acts 17:15; see 18:5). But that’s not what Paul himself says. In 1 Thessalonians Paul indicates that Timothy had been with him in Athens, and that because Paul is eager to get news of how the new Thessalonian converts are doing, he sent Timothy back to them to find out (3:1-2). Maybe it doesn’t much matter, but it does show that Luke doesn’t have the details right.
Page 97 – A second, comparable difference really does matter. According to Paul himself, once he was converted by his vision of Christ, he did not go to Jerusalem in order to meet with the apostles (Gal. 1:17). Paul is quite insistent on the point. He stresses the fact and says, “Before God, I do not lie!” (1:20). The reason is quite clear: he wants his readers to realize that the gospel message he preaches was not handed on to him by Jesus’ earthly disciples. He got it directly from Christ himself in a vision that led to his conversion. No one, then, can accuse him of perverting the gospel as he inherited it from those who were apostles before him. This makes it all the more interesting to see how the events play out according to the book of Acts. There, after his conversion, Paul leaves Damascus and goes directly to Jerusalem, precisely in order to meet with the apostles (Acts 9:23-30). Luke has his own reasons for wanting Paul to make immediate acquaintance with the apostles. For him, all of the apostles—Peter, James, Paul, and everyone else—were in complete agreement about all the important matters facing the church. The need to show apostolic agreement led him to tell the story of an early apostolic meeting, even though Paul explicitly denies it.
Page 107 – Luke also claims that Paul, as a young man, came to study Judaism in Jerusalem with the great rabbi of his day, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This tradition is even more unlikely than the others. Paul himself would have had good reasons to emphasize his educational pedigree when highlighting his pre-Christian credentials in the passages I quoted above, but he is silent about the specifics of his training. In fact, Paul gives no clear indication at all that he was familiar with distinctively Aramaic/Hebrew modes of interpretation: he is thoroughly at home with the Greek Septuagint, on the other hand. Luke, however, would have had plenty of reasons to claim that Paul was trained “at the feet of Gamaliel”: this provides the hero of his Acts with the very best Jewish education one could have, with the most famous rabbi of his day, in Jerusalem itself. If these were the circles Paul himself actually ran in, however, it is virtually impossible to explain some of the things that he says in his letters, for example, that the Jewish people who converted to worship Jesus in Judea didn’t know him in person—even what he looked like. It appears Paul had never spent much, if any, time in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea, before he became a follower of Jesus.
Page 107 – One claim in Acts that recurs in later legends about Paul is that he was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25). This has struck some historians as highly unlikely. Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Jews who didn’t adhere to some kind of strict Judaism would probably have had few qualms about the matter. But a highly religious Jew such as Paul? It seems unlikely. Moreover, citizenship in this period was, for the most part, restricted to the elite. Paul, on the other hand, even though he was well educated, appears to have been strictly working-class. Here again it may be that Luke is trying to stress just how prominent Paul was—a citizen of Rome, even—before his conversion.
From Bart’s post titled Is the Paul of Acts at Odds with the Paul of His Own Letters?
April 10, 2024 – He said he took this from his book Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.
Paul and his companion Barnabas arrive in town, and on the Sabbath they go to the synagogue for worship with their fellow Jews. As outside guests, they are asked if they have anything to say to the congregation. Paul stands up and delivers a long sermon (Acts 13:16-42). … Finally, there is an important theological contrast between this sermon in Acts and Paul’s own writings. It has to do with one of the most fundamental questions of Christian doctrine. How is it that Christ’s death brings salvation? Paul had a definite view of the matter; so did Luke, the author of Acts. What careful readers have realized over the years is that Paul and Luke express their doctrines of salvation quite differently. According to Paul, Christ’s death provides an atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. These are not the same thing … In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ had to be sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.
The idea of “atonement” is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice has to be made that can make up for the fact that someone has transgressed the divine law. The sacrifice satisfies the just demands of God, whose Law has been broken and who requires a penalty. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about an atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others, so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.
The idea of “forgiveness” is that someone lets you off the hook for something that you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. If you forgive a debt, it means you don’t make the other person pay. That’s quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which would be the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ had to be sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.
Q: Paul emphasizes Jesus’s crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice while Acts seems to present it more as an unjust execution that God reverses through resurrection. Where would you say this contrast is most evident?
A: BD Ehrman March 5, 2025. One good way is to contrast what Paul says in Romans 3 with what he says, e.g., in his speech in Acts 13. Both talk about how one obtains salvation.
Romans 3:19-25 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement. NRSV
In the Book of Acts, Paul speaks about justification and salvation in several passages. Here are some key ones:
- Acts 13:38-39 – In a sermon at Pisidian Antioch, Paul declares: “Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (ASV)
- Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Jesus, not through the Law of Moses.
- Acts 16:30-31 – When the Philippian jailer asks, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, Paul and Silas respond: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.” (ASV)
- This verse highlights faith in Jesus as the requirement for salvation.
- Acts 17:30-31 – In Athens, Paul preaches: “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (ASV)
- Here, Paul connects salvation with repentance and belief in the resurrected Christ.
- Acts 20:21 – Paul summarizes his message: “testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (ASV)
- Paul teaches that salvation requires both repentance and faith in Christ.
- Acts 22:16 – When recounting his conversion, Paul recalls Ananias telling him: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” (ASV)
- This passage links baptism and calling on Jesus’ name with the washing away of sins.
These passages provide a clear view of Paul’s teaching on justification and salvation in Acts. Would you like to explore any of these in more detail?
Paul’s statements in Acts about salvation and justification generally align with his letters but show some key differences in emphasis and phrasing. Here’s how they compare from ChatGPT.
1. Justification by Faith vs. Law
Acts 13:38-39 (Paul’s sermon in Pisidian Antioch)
“Through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (ASV)
Authentic Letters (e.g., Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28)
“Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” (NRSV)
✅ Similarity: Both emphasize that justification comes through faith in Jesus, not through the Law of Moses.
❌ Difference: Acts presents this as part of a public sermon, whereas in Galatians and Romans, Paul argues against Jewish-Christian opponents who insisted on keeping the Mosaic Law. His letters are more polemical, stressing justification by “faith apart from works of the law.”
2. Repentance and Faith
Acts 20:21 (Paul summarizing his preaching)
“testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (ASV)
Authentic Letters (e.g., Romans 1:16-17, Galatians 3:6-9)
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (NRSV)
✅ Similarity: Both emphasize faith in Christ as the means of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike.
❌ Difference: Acts places more emphasis on repentance than Paul’s letters do. While Paul mentions repentance occasionally (Romans 2:4, 2 Corinthians 7:9-10), he focuses more on faith as the key to salvation.
3. Baptism and Salvation
Acts 22:16 (Ananias to Paul)
“Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” (ASV)
Authentic Letters (e.g., Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 1:17)
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (NRSV, Romans 6:3)
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (NRSV, Galatians 3:27)
✅ Similarity: Paul acknowledges the importance of baptism as a sign of being united with Christ.
❌ Difference: In Acts, baptism appears as the moment of washing away sins, whereas in Paul’s letters, faith is the primary means of justification, and baptism is the outward symbol of that faith. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul even downplays baptism compared to preaching the gospel.
4. The Role of Works
Acts 26:20 (Paul before King Agrippa)
“that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.” (ASV)
Authentic Letters (e.g., Romans 4:4-5, Galatians 2:16)
“Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (NRSV, Romans 4:4-5)
✅ Similarity: Paul agrees that a transformed life follows salvation.
❌ Difference: In Acts, Paul emphasizes good works as part of repentance, whereas in his letters, he insists that salvation comes apart from works.
Overall Differences
- Acts emphasizes repentance and baptism more than Paul’s letters, where faith in Christ is central.
- Acts presents Paul’s gospel as simpler and less polemical—faith and repentance lead to salvation. His letters, especially Galatians and Romans, contain deep theological arguments against justification by the Law.
- Acts portrays Paul’s teachings as harmonious with early Christian leaders, while his letters (especially Galatians 2:11-14) show sharp conflicts with figures like Peter and James over the role of the Law.
Would you like a deeper dive into any of these differences?
