How many total apostles were there?

[x1980x]

My understanding of CC teaching is that the apostles passed on succession to bishops, who were not apostles themselves but nonetheless had authority over the church.

The bible appears to indicate that there were 14 people who were considered to be “apostles” - the Twelve Apostles, Paul the Apostle (who received a separate calling on the Road to Damascus), and Matthias, who was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. Other than these 14 people, were there any other church leaders who were considered to be true apostles, or were all other leaders considered to be ‘just’ bishops and not apostles? What’s the exact difference between a bishop and an apostle?

Could there be a future apostle? For example, would the CC recognize a “Damascus Road” type call to be an apostle if it happened today to a layman or even a non-Christian and accept that person as a leader with the authority of a bishop?

 

[Holly3278]

My understanding of CC teaching is that the apostles passed on succession to bishops, who were not apostles themselves but nonetheless had authority over the church.

The bible appears to indicate that there were 14 people who were considered to be “apostles” - the Twelve Apostles, Paul the Apostle (who received a separate calling on the Road to Damascus), and Matthias, who was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. Other than these 14 people, were there any other church leaders who were considered to be true apostles, or were all other leaders considered to be ‘just’ bishops and not apostles? What’s the exact difference between a bishop and an apostle?

Could there be a future apostle? For example, would the CC recognize a “Damascus Road” type call to be an apostle if it happened today to a layman or even a non-Christian and accept that person as a leader with the authority of a bishop?

Well, a layman or non-Christian could never have the same amount of authority or the same authority as a bishop. A non-Christian especially could never have the authority that a bishop does unless the non-Christian converted and eventually became a bishop.

 

[x1980x]

Well, a layman or non-Christian could never have the same amount of authority or the same authority as a bishop. A non-Christian especially could never have the authority that a bishop does unless the non-Christian converted and eventually became a bishop.

What about Paul? He wasn’t a Christian until he had his conversion experience, and then Jesus apparently up and made him an apostle. He didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle. Could something like this happen today?

 

[buffalo]

I thought it was 13. They all knew Jesus.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

In theory, yes it could happen. After all, it DID happen - to Paul. And, the early Christians were skeptical until they had investigated.

Actually, Saul (Paul) WAS ordained - by Ananias.

Reference: Acts, Chapter 9

It’s my understanding (and I have no reference for this) that a conclave can, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, elect anyone to the office of Pope. If that person is not an ordained bishop, they will receive ordination upon election. The likelihood of that happening in this day and age seems to be nil, but again, in theory, it *could * happen.

The Church, of course, would also want to thoroughly investigate any such “direct-line” calling like the one that occurred with Paul.

 

[x1980x]

In theory, yes it could happen. After all, it DID happen - to Paul. And, the early Christians were skeptical until they had investigated.

Actually, Saul (Paul) WAS ordained - by Ananias.

Reference: Acts, Chapter 9
…

I checked Acts 9 and in verse 18 he is baptized, but I don’t see anything in there about an ordination.

What about additional apostles a la Matthias? Were there further “replacements” done after the deaths of other apostles where the successor was considered an apostle in the same way that Matthias was an apostle who succeeded Judas Iscariot? The traditional list of popes of the CC indicates that St. Linus was the successor of Peter. Was Linus a (replacement) apostle or had the practice of adding new apostles as opposed to adding bishops died with Matthias and Paul?

 

[gus]

What about Paul? He wasn’t a Christian until he had his conversion experience, and then Jesus apparently up and made him an apostle. He didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle. Could something like this happen today?

He most certainly did go to get acceptence of the truth of his gospel from Peter and James.
He had an experience but the only way he could confirm it was from God was by consultation with the Church. The church was the living body of Christ.
Remember the voice said Saul why do you persecute me.
It was pretty clear to Saul who he was persecuting.
The Church
If his message was in conflict with the church it in all probability it didn’t 't come from God.
If his message was in conflict with the church his letters would never been accepted into the New Testament.

 

[pablope]

What about Paul? He wasn’t a Christian until he had his conversion experience, and then Jesus apparently up and made him an apostle. He didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle. Could something like this happen today?

I suggest you re-read Acts Chapter 9 and following. Paul was baptized by Ananias…17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

In Acts 13…he is in fact ordained…before starting his first missionary journey…at Antioch…in which Peter is the founder of the church at antioch…1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And in Gal …he even relates how he submits to authority…Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

Could something like this happen today

If it would, it would follow the same pattern…submission to an authority first…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[pablope]

I checked Acts 9 and in verse 18 he is baptized, but I don’t see anything in there about an ordination.

What about additional apostles a la Matthias? Were there further “replacements” done after the deaths of other apostles where the successor was considered an apostle in the same way that Matthias was an apostle who succeeded Judas Iscariot? The traditional list of popes of the CC indicates that St. Linus was the successor of Peter. Was Linus a (replacement) apostle or had the practice of adding new apostles as opposed to adding bishops died with Matthias and Paul?

Perhaps the epistle of Clement of Rome to corinth will assist you here…relating the instructions of the Apostles…selected quotes:

42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
44:1 Our Apostles, too, by the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that strife would arise concerning the dignity of a bishop;
44:2 and on this account, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned as bishops and deacons: and then gave a rule of succession, in order that, when they had fallen asleep, other men, who had been approved, might succeed to their ministry.

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

 

[jcrichton]

My understanding of CC teaching is that the apostles passed on succession to bishops, who were not apostles themselves but nonetheless had authority over the church.

The bible appears to indicate that there were 14 people who were considered to be “apostles” - the Twelve Apostles, Paul the Apostle (who received a separate calling on the Road to Damascus), and Matthias, who was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. Other than these 14 people, were there any other church leaders who were considered to be true apostles, or were all other leaders considered to be ‘just’ bishops and not apostles? What’s the exact difference between a bishop and an apostle?

Could there be a future apostle? For example, would the CC recognize a “Damascus Road” type call to be an apostle if it happened today to a layman or even a non-Christian and accept that person as a leader with the authority of a bishop?

…Apostle is the Greek word/term for “sent” or “one who is sent.”

…what I find interesting about Scriptures is that “scholars”/“theologeans” and others continue to down play Jesus Command that we eat (gnaw) His Flesh and drink His Blood as not having a literal meaning… then they take words such as Apostles and they make it seem that Scriptures have mandated that they be fixed for a certain time and period limited to the very temporal existence of the Incarnate Word (…funny thing is that Christ never called anyone an Apostle!)

Here’s a little something to chew on:

28 And those whom God has appointed in the Church are, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after them, miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helpful acts, guidance, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all of them apostles? Or all prophets? Or all teachers? Or all miracle-workers? (1 Corinthians 12:28-29)

…here we find St. Paul speaking about the Power and Gifts of the Holy Spirit (coincidentally, he is also presenting a simple hierarchical format) and he declares that God has appointed in the Church Apostles and Prophets… so either St. Paul had it wrong or there is, as the Catholic Church claims it, a succession of the Apostles–further since St. Paul speaks of an order where the Apostles are followed by the Prophets, is this not proof enough that both offices have continuance in the Church founded by Christ to exist throughout time?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

What about Paul? He wasn’t a Christian until he had his conversion experience, and then Jesus apparently up and made him an apostle. He didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle. Could something like this happen today?

…you mean like that Smith guy who got another gospel from Christ and founded the Mormons?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I checked Acts 9 and in verse 18 he is baptized, but I don’t see anything in there about an ordination.

What about additional apostles a la Matthias? Were there further “replacements” done after the deaths of other apostles where the successor was considered an apostle in the same way that Matthias was an apostle who succeeded Judas Iscariot? The traditional list of popes of the CC indicates that St. Linus was the successor of Peter. Was Linus a (replacement) apostle or had the practice of adding new apostles as opposed to adding bishops died with Matthias and Paul?

I think you guys are missing the point… Saul was not an ordinary conversion! …I do not recall Scriptures speaking on how his name was changed to Paul, but we know that he came in direct contact with Jesus… it was Jesus that not only Called but Revealed to him Who He Is… in order to be accepted by the rest of the Apostles and those who gathered with them in Jerusalem Paul sought Kephas/Cephas out and it was Peter who spoke on Paul’s behalf to the Church.

…yet, outside of St. Paul all others had to be innitiated by a direct imposition of the hands (Acts of the Apostles)… as the Church grew Doctrine and Method developed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[garysibio]

Jesus was an apostle. See Heb 3:1.

Barnabbas was an apostle. See Acts 14:14.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

In theory, yes it could happen. After all, it DID happen - to Paul. And, the early Christians were skeptical until they had investigated.

Actually, Saul (Paul) WAS ordained - by Ananias.

Reference: Acts, Chapter 9

It’s my understanding (and I have no reference for this) that a conclave can, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, elect anyone to the office of Pope. If that person is not an ordained bishop, they will receive ordination upon election. The likelihood of that happening in this day and age seems to be nil, but again, in theory, it *could * happen.

The Church, of course, would also want to thoroughly investigate any such “direct-line” calling like the one that occurred with Paul.

You forgot the limitations of they must be a male above the age of reason.

 

[JohnVIII]

What about Paul? He wasn’t a Christian until he had his conversion experience, and then Jesus apparently up and made him an apostle. He didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle. Could something like this happen today?

My answer to “How many total apostles were there?” is “one”, and that one was Paul. Paul was the only one who was called to be an apostle to all of creation, whereas the 12 were called only to the 12 tribes of Israel. As far as the title of “Apostle” itself, the 12 disciples eventually were called apostles, but only because that word meant one who is “sent”. There were also 70 disciples “sent” by Jesus too and these likewise, at a much later time, started to be referred to as “apostles”. The 70, according to early Catholic tradition, became the first bishops of See’s throughout the world; so they were really no different than bishops. The 12, were likewise no different than bishops (this is what I say, Catholic teaching is different). To back up my assertion that the 12 were not called apostles until a later time (some time after Paul was called an apostle) I would like to point out that in “the Gospel of Nicodemus” (also called “the acts of Pilate” (both form one and two)) the special 12 disciples of Jesus were never referred to there as “apostles”. Several very credible scholars maintain that “the Gospel of Nicodemus” was written before any of the 4 canonical gospels, so it would appear that the concept of thinking of these special 12 disciples as “apostles” either had not yet been developed, or (I think more likely) the concept was borrowed from Paul being called an apostle.
An early, very large, sect of Christianity said that Paul was the only apostle (the Marcionites). Although most scholars say that the reason for this was that this sect did not believe that the 12 were “true” apostles, I think that it is just as probable that the reason was that this sect was early enough that no one at that point in time used the term “apostle” when referring to the 12.
If this, what I have just said, is all true it would explain why it is so, as you say, “He [Paul] didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle”, because if Paul was in fact the first apostle there could not have been anyone around with the “authority” to ordain Paul, since he was the first.

God bless!

 

[garysibio]

My answer to “How many total apostles were there?” is “one”, and that one was Paul. Paul was the only one who was called to be an apostle to all of creation, whereas the 12 were called only to the 12 tribes of Israel. As far as the title of “Apostle” itself, the 12 disciples eventually were called apostles, but only because that word meant one who is “sent”. There were also 70 disciples “sent” by Jesus too and these likewise, at a much later time, started to be referred to as “apostles”. The 70, according to early Catholic tradition, became the first bishops of See’s throughout the world; so they were really no different than bishops. The 12, were likewise no different than bishops (this is what I say, Catholic teaching is different). To back up my assertion that the 12 were not called apostles until a later time (some time after Paul was called an apostle) I would like to point out that in “the Gospel of Nicodemus” (also called “the acts of Pilate” (both form one and two)) the special 12 disciples of Jesus were never referred to there as “apostles”. Several very credible scholars maintain that “the Gospel of Nicodemus” was written before any of the 4 canonical gospels, so it would appear that the concept of thinking of these special 12 disciples as “apostles” either had not yet been developed, or (I think more likely) the concept was borrowed from Paul being called an apostle.
An early, very large, sect of Christianity said that Paul was the only apostle (the Marcionites). Although most scholars say that the reason for this was that this sect did not believe that the 12 were “true” apostles, I think that it is just as probable that the reason was that this sect was early enough that no one at that point in time used the term “apostle” when referring to the 12.
If this, what I have just said, is all true it would explain why it is so, as you say, “He [Paul] didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle”, because if Paul was in fact the first apostle there could not have been anyone around with the “authority” to ordain Paul, since he was the first.

God bless!

Another one to add to the ignore list.

 

[jcrichton]

My answer to “How many total apostles were there?” is “one”, and that one was Paul. Paul was the only one who was called to be an apostle to all of creation, whereas the 12 were called only to the 12 tribes of Israel. As far as the title of “Apostle” itself, the 12 disciples eventually were called apostles, but only because that word meant one who is “sent”. There were also 70 disciples “sent” by Jesus too and these likewise, at a much later time, started to be referred to as “apostles”. The 70, according to early Catholic tradition, became the first bishops of See’s throughout the world; so they were really no different than bishops. The 12, were likewise no different than bishops (this is what I say, Catholic teaching is different). To back up my assertion that the 12 were not called apostles until a later time (some time after Paul was called an apostle) I would like to point out that in “the Gospel of Nicodemus” (also called “the acts of Pilate” (both form one and two)) the special 12 disciples of Jesus were never referred to there as “apostles”. Several very credible scholars maintain that “the Gospel of Nicodemus” was written before any of the 4 canonical gospels, so it would appear that the concept of thinking of these special 12 disciples as “apostles” either had not yet been developed, or (I think more likely) the concept was borrowed from Paul being called an apostle.
An early, very large, sect of Christianity said that Paul was the only apostle (the Marcionites). Although most scholars say that the reason for this was that this sect did not believe that the 12 were “true” apostles, I think that it is just as probable that the reason was that this sect was early enough that no one at that point in time used the term “apostle” when referring to the 12.
If this, what I have just said, is all true it would explain why it is so, as you say, “He [Paul] didn’t have to be ordained a bishop by Peter or anyone else, because he was already an apostle”, because if Paul was in fact the first apostle there could not have been anyone around with the “authority” to ordain Paul, since he was the first.

God bless!

…the problem with that is that it negates Christ’s Own Command:

16 Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them. 17 When they saw him they fell down before him, though some hesitated. 18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.’ (St. Matthew 28:16-20)

…notice how St. Paul is not present at this important junction! …it also obliterates St. Paul’s claims to Apostleship since his claim is based upon the existing Twelve:

8 Last of all he appeared to me too, as though I was a child born abnormally. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and am not really fit to be called an apostle, because I had been persecuting the Church of God; 10 but what I am now, I am through the grace of God, and the grace which was given to me has not been wasted. Indeed, I have worked harder than all the others – not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Anyway, whether it was they or I, this is what we preach and what you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:8-11)

…are Sacred Scriptures wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JohnVIII]

…are Sacred Scriptures wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

I do not believe that scripture is “wrong”. Scripture is true, but an interpolation can be either true or not. The “fancy” word for an interpolation is “Literary Accretion”.

As Charles Burlingame Waite explains in his book, “The History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred”, chapter 16: “For the purpose of edification, and of increasing, somewhat, the volume, not then very large, of current Christian literature, they [the early Catholic redactors] made additions, more or less extensive, to the writings which they were copying or translating. This process, which may be termed literary accretion, prevailed so extensively and universally, in those times, that it was the rule, rather than the exception.”

If you are interested (as I am) in determining all that un-interpolated scripture has to say then every effort should be made to identifying interpolations and reading past them. Or, if you can’t be sure about it, when you come to two accounts of the same record that seem to not say the same things, then go with the shorter and older version. It is universally agreed that the epistles of Paul are the oldest of all the books in the Bible (i.e. New Testament). So if you, for example, find something in the letters of Paul that do not agree with the Acts of the Apostles I would go with the scriptures of Paul. The Acts of the Apostles were written to “Theophilus” (Acts 1:1) who I believe even the Catholic encyclopedia concedes refers to Bishop Theophilus of Antioch (169 A.D. to 183 A.D.), and so this means that the Acts of the Apostles were written nearly a century after the the epistles of Paul.

This is not something a person of faith should despair about, it just makes it so that you can’t be lazy in your efforts to understand what is the truth of scripture.

I believe that the evidence suggests that the idea the the 12 disciples were also “apostles” is a concept added to scripture (i.e. Literary Accretion); probably added in the mid-second century. Now, I believe it also appears that no one cares about this idea, nor wishes to hear any proof of it or anything at all about it, so if what I have to share does not have the desired effect of contributing to Christian faith and knowledge as it should if the hearer is rooted in Christian virtues, then I have nothing more to say.

Peace!

 

[jcrichton]

I do not believe that scripture is “wrong”. Scripture is true, but an interpolation can be either true or not. The “fancy” word for an interpolation is “Literary Accretion”.

As Charles Burlingame Waite explains in his book, “The History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred”, chapter 16: “For the purpose of edification, and of increasing, somewhat, the volume, not then very large, of current Christian literature, they [the early Catholic redactors] made additions, more or less extensive, to the writings which they were copying or translating. This process, which may be termed literary accretion, prevailed so extensively and universally, in those times, that it was the rule, rather than the exception.”

If you are interested (as I am) in determining all that un-interpolated scripture has to say then every effort should be made to identifying interpolations and reading past them. Or, if you can’t be sure about it, when you come to two accounts of the same record that seem to not say the same things, then go with the shorter and older version. It is universally agreed that the epistles of Paul are the oldest of all the books in the Bible (i.e. New Testament). So if you, for example, find something in the letters of Paul that do not agree with the Acts of the Apostles I would go with the scriptures of Paul. The Acts of the Apostles were written to “Theophilus” (Acts 1:1) who I believe even the Catholic encyclopedia concedes refers to Bishop Theophilus of Antioch (169 A.D. to 183 A.D.), and so this means that the Acts of the Apostles were written nearly a century after the the epistles of Paul.

This is not something a person of faith should despair about, it just makes it so that you can’t be lazy in your efforts to understand what is the truth of scripture.

I believe that the evidence suggests that the idea the the 12 disciples were also “apostles” is a concept added to scripture (i.e. Literary Accretion); probably added in the mid-second century. Now, I believe it also appears that no one cares about this idea, nor wishes to hear any proof of it or anything at all about it, so if what I have to share does not have the desired effect of contributing to Christian faith and knowledge as it should if the hearer is rooted in Christian virtues, then I have nothing more to say.

Peace!

I’m quite pedestrian… so most of scholars’ findings (reasoning) is waaaay beyond me; I cannot argue about the origin of say an Epistle vs. Acts since I lack all the skills… however, I am quite suspect of findings that seem way out of proportion and are based mostly on “feel” and “authority (based on personal credentials).”

…unless you, and the scholars, are claiming that Jesus’ Word is superseded by scholars’ findings (some which are hundreds of years removed and based on personal bias) why should I believe that if I am given “x” date which precedes “xy” date I am being assured of factual information… should I not Believe Jesus’ Command that His Disciples–which are transformed into Apostles since the term (unless new findings prove it different) means “sent”–go and proclaim (preach) the Gospel to the whole world means exactly what He said? Should I (or anyone in the world, for that matter) instead believe the findings of someone who uses personal qualifiers to determine that in deed Jesus did not Command the Disciples to Go Forth into the World and Proclaim the Gospel as His Apostles?

…and these “concepts,” where is the proof of their addition? …and would the perpetrators sought to make them because the Bible lack genuine Truth? …and which portions of the Bible have not been altered? …and where is all the proof for all those claims?–oh yeah, I forgot, it’s in the “I believe” and “evidence suggests;” …really? …so these perpetrators put a little clause in St. Paul’s mouth (he calls himself the lesser of the Apostles) in order to validate their treacherous inserts?

Should I also disregard the actual development of the Church as you are suggesting that till Saul conversion the Church did nothing but hide behind doors in the place where the Holy Spirit Manifested Himself (or is that another embellishment)?

If Jesus’ Disciples did exactly as He Commanded them, then how can anyone doubt that they were acting in the capacity of Jesus’ Apostles?

…have you noticed that scholars, often times, miss the forest for the trees?

…and that people, lay as well as clerics, often base their findings (conclusions) not necessarily on the works/information in front of them but on their preconceived notions?

I pray the Holy Spirit allows you to enjoy the forest!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ConstantineTG]

My understanding of CC teaching is that the apostles passed on succession to bishops, who were not apostles themselves but nonetheless had authority over the church.

The bible appears to indicate that there were 14 people who were considered to be “apostles” - the Twelve Apostles, Paul the Apostle (who received a separate calling on the Road to Damascus), and Matthias, who was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. Other than these 14 people, were there any other church leaders who were considered to be true apostles, or were all other leaders considered to be ‘just’ bishops and not apostles? What’s the exact difference between a bishop and an apostle?

Could there be a future apostle? For example, would the CC recognize a “Damascus Road” type call to be an apostle if it happened today to a layman or even a non-Christian and accept that person as a leader with the authority of a bishop?

There were others who were also called as Apostles, like Barnabas, Timothy, Mark, etc.

Apostles were those who were sent and were living witnesses to Jesus’ ministry. Everyone recognized as an Apostle physically lived alongside and followed Jesus. Except for Saul/Paul, but his was a special ministry. Perhaps the reason is that no Jew will just up and teach to the gentiles. Remember that despite Peter’s vision and experience with Cornellius, he never actively pursued a ministry with the gentiles. Paul grew up in Gentile territory despite being a Jew, and he is a Roman citizen. So he has more affinity with the gentiles and wouldn’t hesitate approaching them unlike those who grew up in and around Jerusalem.