Why did Luke generally withhold the title apostle from Paul.?

Answer 1

Disclaimer: It has been a long time since I've studied this period of history and while I believe most of the following is accurate I may have made a few mistakes. Please do correct any mistakes you notice.

In the early church soon after Jesus left there was a schism, where several different groups formed each being led by an apostle or follower. Each of these groups claimed to have the true teachings of Christ and the right to lay claim to his heritage.

One of these groups was led by Peter, whom Luke supported and another was led by Paul.

Paul had never been a follower of Jesus while he still walked the Earth and only converted after the crucification. His claim of seeing the spirit of Jesus led to him believing that he had been chosen to lead the church and not Peter.

Peter and his followers like Luke saw Paul as an outsider making false claims.

The matter became more complicated when the dogma of the two groups started to diverge from one another.

Paul taught that faith alone leads to salvation/ While Peter taught that faith and works led to salvation.

Paul taught that Jesus had died for the sins of the world and that all people could find salvation through him/ Peter taught that Jesus had died to save only the Jewish people from their sins and that non-Jews, with only rare exceptions could not be saved.

The differences in theology continued to increase between the two groups and it was not until the church started to be openly persecuted that the groups started to work together.

In short the reason Luke withheld the title of apostle from Paul was because Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh and his claim of seeing Jesus could not be verified.

Luke's purpose in Acts, which is the only writing of Luke in which Paul is mentioned, was to write a history of the early church and how the word spread. Paul is mentioned as an apostle in Acts 14:14 and most other times, after his conversion, as just Paul. In this case Barnabas is also called an apostle together with Paul.

Luke's literary habit was not to title anyone as an apostle. Barnabas is not called an apostle anywhere else and even Peter is only infrequently called one. In Acts 10 where Peter is prominent (his name is mentioned about 20 times) he is not once called an apostle. Thus nothing can be made of the absence of the title except to point to the likely audience of Luke, who would not have been interested in title but in the details of the story.

Where Luke confers the title on anyone, it has a purpose to designate the authority or position of the person involved and so he simply deemed it unnecessary in the greater part of his writings concerning Paul's life from his conversion onwards. The absence of the title from other known apostles supports this view.

It has been stated often that there were all kinds of sects and divisions in the early church. The case for these has been greatly overstated, well beyond the divisions recorded in the New Testament. Luke, as a reliable historian was also not interested in recording something which was not satisfactorily verifiable. Thus, it is extremely doubtful if he would have recorded Paul's conversion if he had not verified it's veracity.

To be consistent the case for the absence of the title on Paul would also lead to a questioning of the credentials of almost all of the other apostles if the same criteria is applied. Clearly, their credentials were not the issue and so Luke, in writing for gentiles and himself likely also a gentile, did not place great emphasis on such titles where unnecessary. Paul himself of course mentioned it numerous times when his credentials were on the line, and of course in his typical introductory remarks at the beginning of his letters.

In summary, Luke withheld the title because he did not deem it necessary for the purpose of his narrative, where Paul's apostleship was not in question. Thus no case can be made that this means or implies any question about Paul's credentials. If this really were an issue then there would not have been so many if any at all of Paul's letters preserved as authoritative scripture.

Criteria for Apostles:

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Act 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Act 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

In my humble opinion. from the above scripture Saul(Paul) could not have been an apostle because he didn't meet the criteria. Regardless of his own claims. Also in the book of Matthew:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

There is not 13th throne mentioned anywhere in The Bible that I am aware of. Or an extra one just to judge "gentiles".

Answer 2

Luke likely did not use the title "apostle" for Paul in his writings because he was not part of the original twelve apostles chosen by Jesus. Instead, Paul referred to himself as an apostle in his own letters to establish his authority as a messenger of Christ. Paul's role and authority were recognized by the early Christian community despite not being one of the original apostles.