Was Paul an Apostle (Part 1)?
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
The short answer to the title question is, “Of course,” but some have gone to great lengths to try to discredit Paul—probably because of his teaching concerning the role of women in the church. To get rid of 1 Timothy 2, along with 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, would surely decimate what Christianity teaches regarding this subject. The historical acceptance of those two books is unassailable; therefore, a great need exists to challenge the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship. Allen Victor Garaffa has written a book—The Pauline Conspiracy (2010)—in which he argues that Paul is a false prophet.
As of this writing, little information has been forthcoming about Mr. Garaffa. He says that he is male and lives in North Carolina. Nothing is given concerning what degrees, if any, he might have attained or what credentials he has that anyone should listen to him. We are not saying that a person cannot be self-taught; certainly many have been. But should he show himself to be ignorant of fundamental Biblical matters, then he is the one who is discredited (rather than Paul). Mr. Garaffa demonstrates that he possesses no scholarly skills in his very first chapter.
He accuses Paul (and therefore the writer Luke) of several “contradictions,” one of which involves the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9:7. The text says that those who accompanied him to Damascus heard a voice, while Acts 22:9 states that those with Saul “did not hear the voice” of the One Who spoke to him. So, what does Mr. Garaffa do? Did he check the Greek language for a solution? No. Did he check a Bible commentary to see if some truly knowledgeable men had pertinent comments? No. He just assumes that these two accounts clash. No one who is so shallow in his approach to the Holy Bible has any respect for the Word of God, period. Although he likes to refer to himself as a truth seeker, it is obvious that his position is driving him, or he would not be so haphazard in the way that he deals with the Scriptures.
So what is the explanation? The Greek word akouo (from which we derive the English word acoustic) means “to hear,” but it is used just as we use it in English. The easiest way to explain what happened is to refer to the question we have all probably asked: “What did you say?” What do we mean by such a question? We heard sound, but we did not understand the specific words. So, we ask for clarification. In Acts 9:7, those with Paul heard a voice—that is, they heard the sound that a voice makes. When Acts 22:9, however, says that the companions heard no voice, Luke means that the sound was not distinguishable to their ears; they could not understand the words that the voice spoke. Why could Saul understand the words but they could not? A third account of this event explains that the voice was speaking to Saul (Acts 26:14). Since the message was to Saul, he heard it distinctly; those with him only heard the sound. This so-called “discrepancy” is nothing more than a quibble, easily harmonized.
Garaffa’s attitude toward the Scriptures is seen in his eagerness to make no effort whatsoever to make the Scriptures harmonize; he immediately assumes the worst and disparages the Word of God at his very first opportunity. Another insight into his thinking is this sentence: “Did he [Luke, gws] receive the story from his friend, Paul, or was he a witness?” He and Paul may have discussed the event, but Luke was inspired of the Holy Spirit—a possibility Garaffa ignores.
The writer mentions Acts 26:14, where Paul says that the Lord spoke to him in the Hebrew language. Immediately, he questions whether or not it was the Hebrew language or Aramaic. What difference it would make Garaffa does not say. Does he think that Jesus did not know Hebrew? He tries to pass off the inclusion of different details as contradictions. Apparently, he thinks Paul should tell what happened in precisely the same words every time, as though we ourselves behave in such a manner.
Seldom does Garaffa give evidence for his assertions. Consider the following non sequitur:
In the end, we are to observe by his own words that Paul's recovery from blindness did not involve a perfect 'healing'. His own words testify to the fact that his sight-impairment was permanent and so he complained of it throughout his travels. At the last, he claims that his 'thorn in the side' is of Satan. It would also appear that there was some matter of his being disfigured, unsightly to behold.
This paragraph is 75% imagination and 25% fact. First, Paul’s sight was restored (Acts 22:16). Second, neither Paul nor Luke ever said that Paul did not receive a “perfect healing.” Why these words have quotes around them, as though Garaffa were quoting Scripture is a mystery. Perhaps the author could provide a list of all those times Paul complained of his eyesight during all of his travels. Third, Paul implies in one letter written years after this event that he had a problem with his eyes. He says in the letter to the Galatians that they at one time loved him so much that they “would have plucked out” their own eyes and given them to Paul (4:15). At the letter’s close he mentions that he had written the epistle in large letters with his own hand. But he does not attribute his problem to an imperfect healing. Garaffa is seeing and connecting dots that are not there. Fourth, Paul does not identify the thorn in his side; all that one can legitimately conclude is that he may have been referring to his eyesight (as he aged) (2 Cor. 12:7-10).
The writer failed to mention any of these verses. He quotes them only when he is stating a Biblical truth but then omits them when he is just making assertion. In this way he gives the appearance of using the Scriptures properly, although he is not. More evidence of intentionally mishandling the Scriptures is found in the example below:
Luke openly declares that Paul began at once to "... declare to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles..." (Acts 19:20).
How embarrassing. He gave the wrong Scripture reference. This is Acts 26:20. Sadly, those who allow themselves to be influenced by this man’s writings will probably not even notice Garaffa’s gaffe. Even sadder is the abuse of this passage that he gives:
In this, he also contradicts Luke, bringing doubt on his word.
The good physician has all this beginning at the moment of Paul's 'vision', but in fact, none of it occurred for years.
It is not Luke’s word that is in doubt but rather Garaffa’s. He has, apparently, never heard of a summary statement or thought to compare this verse with Acts 1:8. Can he really be so obtuse as to think that Paul went to all these countries immediately, knowing what travel was like in those days? Arguments such as these are not actually worth responding to since they are so lame.
The composer of this nonsense then says Paul was not accurate in 1 Corinthians 15:3 in listing those to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection because he did not list first Mary Magdalene. Paul never intended to provide a complete, documented list of the Lord’s appearances. Luke traveled with Paul, and they undoubtedly talked about spiritual events. Although Luke records the Lord’s meeting with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Paul did not mention it, either (though he was undoubtedly aware of it). Paul never said that Jesus appeared to Cephas first, but those whom he does mention he lists in the proper sequence. He also does not say how many times Jesus appeared to the apostles, but we know that it was more than once. This criticism is simply flummery.
Garaffa offers other arguments without any proof that are baseless. Then he has the gall to suggest that maybe Festus was right—that Paul was actually mad (Acts 26:24). This writer has sufficiently discredited himself by the end of the first chapter so that it is not necessary to examine each quibble that he invents, but we will consider a few other arguments.
When Did Paul Do What?
In the second chapter of Garaffa’s failed effort, he tries to confuse the reader, again alleging that Luke was in error concerning what Paul did after his conversion. He actually quotes from a commentary, but it is not a standard one, such as the Pulpit Commentary. He repeatedly cites The Interpreter’s Bible, but the reader can never tell if he is quoting from it or just alluding to it and then drawing his own conclusions. Consider the following paragraph, for example.
The contradictions are obvious, and are best stated by, The Interpreter’s Bible [sic]. Paul says that after his conversion he, “…went away into Arabia…” (Gal. 1:17). Acts indicates that he began preaching at once. If nothing else, Luke’s account is historically incorrect. (The Interpreter’s Bible; Volume 9: Page 125) [sic].
Forget that the style of documentation is all wrong. Which part of the preceding paragraph is actually found in the source cited? Did the source say that Luke’s account is historically inaccurate, or was that Garaffa’s conclusion? If The Interpreter’s Bible made that comment, then it is an unreliable source—one that, like the author, does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If that conclusion is Garaffa’s, then he is not being honest in his documentation. Either way, something is wrong. The critic continually tries to find discrepancies in the sacred text rather than trying to see if all of the facts can be harmonized. What does the Bible student learn from the details provided?
Paul actually did preach Christ in Damascus as soon as he was converted (Acts 9:20-22), which really confounded the Jews, since Paul had traveled there to persecute Christians. However, the Jews plotted to kill him, and he was let down “through the wall in a large basket” (Acts 9:23-25). Garaffa reads 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 and says, “Aha! It was the governor who tried to kill Paul in Damascus—not the Jews.” What an infantile argument! Has he never heard that Pilate gave the order to have Jesus crucified but that the Jews were the cause of that decision? Is it not possible that the Jews complained to the king that Paul was stirring up Damascus and that something needed to be done by him to maintain order? Therefore, as in the case of Jesus, Paul’s life was being sought by the Jews and by King Aretas; one has to have excessively perverted vision to find a contradiction here.
But concerning the timeline of Paul’s activities after his conversion, the Bible provides the following information.
Saul was converted in Damascus and preached there briefly (Acts 9:1-25; Gal. 1:3-16). Paul did not need to confer with the other apostles; He received his message from the same place they did—the Holy Spirit.
Saul went to Arabia for an unspecified amount of time and then returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17).
After three years (from the time of his conversion), he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained there a couple of weeks (Gal. 1:18-20). Luke includes comments on this visit but does not say when it occurred (Acts 9:26-29).
The Jews wanted to kill Saul there; so brethren sent him down to Caesarea and Tarsus (Acts 15:30). Paul himself says that he went to Syria and Cilicia and was unknown to the churches of Judea (Gal. 2:21-24). Are these statements supposed to contradict each other? They do not. Paul was in Jerusalem, but he never had the opportunity to visit the churches of Judea because he was taken out of that region (perhaps went hurriedly through it) to Caesarea on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Then he went through Syria (north of Caesarea) on his way to Tarsus (the capital of Cilicia).
None of these statements remotely contradicts one another. Anyone with a map can follow Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus.
At some point, however, Barnabas went to Tarsus and convinced Saul to return with him to Antioch, where they both remained for a period of time (Acts 11:25-26). While there, a gift was collected for needy brethren in Judea, which Barnabas and Saul delivered to the elders (Acts 11:27-30).
In Galatians 2:1-10 Paul says that he took this journey to Jerusalem fourteen years later (he evidently is counting years from the time of his conversion rather than from the date of his last appearance there), and he meets with James (the Lord’s brother), Peter, and John. James the brother of John was put to death about this time (Acts 12). Paul’s main purpose in the letter to the Galatians was to show that he did not receive his gospel from men but from God (Gal. 1:11-12).
After Herod’s death, Barnabas and Saul returned to Antioch, where they would shortly begin their first missionary journey, accompanied by John Mark (Acts 12:23-25).
What Garaffa writes is so much gibberish. Anyone carefully studying the events can harmonize them with very little effort; Garaffa goes out of his way to try to make the situation complicated.
Paul’s Letters
The writer, in his third chapter, turns his attention to Paul’s writings, claiming that: 1) Paul did not actually write some of his letters (which is preposterous); 2) he contradicted Jesus’ teachings (also outrageous); and 3) his writings influenced Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (since they were after many of Paul’s letters). Uh, do not points 2 and 3 contradict each other? How can Paul influence what was later written and contradict it at the same time? Hmm!
Garaffa’s “excellent example” involves the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-29). He implies that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all got their information from Paul, which is absurd. Matthew was there; the Holy Spirit gave him an accurate memory of what had happened (John 14:25-26). Mark and Luke were also inspired of the Holy Spirit; they didn’t “get” anything from Paul. They all recorded what occurred on that occasion because they all have the same Divine source.
The author of this rubbish has the temerity to say: “There was no meal of sacrament commemorating Jesus’ death among the disciple’s congregation.” Apparently, he never read Acts 2:42, which lists spiritual endeavors that the newly converted were steadfast in—such as “the breaking of bread,” which in this context refers to the Lord’s Supper rather than a common meal.
Even more incredible is Garaffa’s haughty insistence that Paul had to receive his information “from third party information, an oral tradition that might have existed in Jerusalem, and the teachings of the Twelve….” In his second chapter, Garaffa relied heavily upon Galatians 1-2 in a vain effort to discredit Paul. The text he was leaning so heavily upon says:
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12).
What hypocrisy to appeal to a text to prove one thing and then ignore the substance of it to make absurd statements such as that Paul got his information third hand! Garaffa has no shame.