The importance of the apsotle Paul to the early church

stevevw · Sunday at 5:23 AM

At present I am in a thread about the early church and happen to be researching on how the early church transitioned from the Jewish Temple and synagouges to the Christ church we know in some part today.

It dawned on me how vital Paul was in this transition to the Gentiles and how this related to the new covenant of Christ for the church and how this was a fullfillement of the old covenant.

In some ways Paul was the practical instrument that Christ used to teach this transition to the Jews and also to teach to the Gentiles how this Jewish religion was also theirs.. A sticky situation right in the middle of both sides.

Up until Pentecost and even until Paul this was a Jewish religion being fullfilled. There was no thought of Gentiles and it was strict Judaism. But after Paul we have a situation where the church is being open to the Gentiles but still influennced and directed by Jewish tradition.

Paul is in both camps and teaching that circumcision and other rituals are not necessary while at the same time adhering when necessary. So the Jewish factor was still there. In fact from what I have discovered the Jewish factor was there for a very long time and in many ways Christian worship is premised on Jewish worship but modified.

Such as the prophesies of the old testament that the Gentiles would become a pure sacrifice replacing the animal sacrifice. The breaking of bread becoming a participation in Christs sacrifice of bringing ourselves to the alter as a sacrifice to God imitating Christ in sacrificing our lives for Christ in return. Paul in this sense seen himself fullfilling the old testament priesthood.

Because of the grace given me by God, [I am] a minister (λειτουργός, [leitourgos]) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (ἱερουργοῦντα [hierourgounta], literally serving as a priest, i.e. sacerdos) of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:16).

So in some ways though Peter was the Rock on which Christ built His church I think Paul was the Rock on which the fullfillment of Gods covenent to Abraham in that all nations (Gentiles) would become part of Christ church.

I think this is captured in that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome by the decree of Emperor Nero. Two great men parting the church leaving it to the world. But their influence was enough to establish Christs church as He instructed that would never be defeated by Hades.

Hoping2 · Sunday at 3:03 PM

stevevw said:
At present I am in a thread about the early church and happen to be researching on how the early church transitioned from the Jewish Temple and synagouges to the Christ church we know in some part today.

I dwned on me how vital Paul was in this transition to the Gentiles and how this related to the new covenant of Christ for the church and how this was a fullfillement of the old covenant.

In some ways Paul was the practical instrument that Christ used to teach this transition to the Jews and also to teach to the Gentiles how this was the fullfillment of the Jews. A sticky situation right in the middle of both sides.

Up until Pentecost and even until Paul this was a Jewish religion being fullfilled. There was no thought of Gentiles and it was strict Judaism. But after Paul we have a situation where the church is being open to the Gentiles but still heavily influennced and directed by Jewish tradition.

Paul is in both camps and teaching that circumcision and other rituals are not necessary while at the same time adhering when necessary. So the Jewish factor was still there. In fact from what I have discovered the Jewish factor was there for a very long time and in many ways Christian worship is premised on Jewish worship but modified.

Such as the prophesies of the old testament that the Gentiles would become a pure sacrifice replacing the animal sacrifice. The breaking of bread becoming a participation in Christs sacrifice in bring ourselves to the alter as a sacrifice to God imitating Christ. Paul in this sense seen himself fullfilling the old testament priesthood.

Because of the grace given me by God, [I am] a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service , literally serving as a priest, of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:16).

Not knowing which version of the KJ bible you cite from, I feel it necessary to cite the KJV of Rom 15:16.
"That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
Your quote both adds and omits parts of the verse, making your interpretation questionable to me.

stevevw said:
So in some ways though Peter was the Rock on which Christ build His church I think Paul was the Rock on which the fullfillment of GOds covenent to Abraham in while all nations (Gentiles) would become part of Christ church.

I think this is captured in that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome by the decree of Emperor Nero. Two great men parting the church leaving it to the world. But their influence was enough to establish Christ church as He instructed that would never be defeated by Hades.

stevevw · Monday at 10:10 AM

Hoping2 said:
Not knowing which version of the KJ bible you cite from, I feel it necessary to cite the KJV of Rom 15:16.
"That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
Your quote both adds and omits parts of the verse, making your interpretation questionable to me.

Sorry I forgot to put the link. It was quote from an article that was using Romans 15:16. Here is the section it came from to give context.

Paul applied this analogy explicitly even within Scripture:
Because of the grace given me by God, [I am] a minister (λειτουργός, [leitourgos]) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (ἱερουργοῦντα [hierourgounta], literally serving as a priest, i.e. sacerdos) of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:16).

Thus, in explicit language, Paul relates his ministry as an Apostle of Christ to the ministry of a priest (sacerdos), one who aids the Gentiles in making an offering of themselves to the Lord.
Ministers of the New Covenant: Why Christian Ministers Are Priests

Hoping2 · Monday at 3:43 PM

stevevw said:
Sorry I forgot to put the link. It was quote from an article that was using Romans 15:16. Here is the section it came from to give context.

Paul applied this analogy explicitly even within Scripture:
Because of the grace given me by God, [I am] a minister (λειτουργός, [leitourgos]) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (ἱερουργοῦντα [hierourgounta], literally serving as a priest, i.e. sacerdos) of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:16).

By adding the word "priestly", your source seems to announce an agenda apart from what is actually written.

stevevw said:
Thus, in explicit language, Paul relates his ministry as an Apostle of Christ to the ministry of a priest (sacerdos), one who aids the Gentiles in making an offering of themselves to the Lord.
Ministers of the New Covenant: Why Christian Ministers Are Priests

A minister administers.
Paul gave what he had, to anyone who would listen.
So should we.

stevevw · Tuesday at 8:27 AM

Hoping2 said:
By adding the word "priestly", your source seems to announce an agenda apart from what is actually written.

They have used the word priestly because that is the Greek word Paul uses ie [I am] a minister (λειτουργός, [leitourgos]) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. Which means minister or public servant. This was referenced to the use of the same word that was attribed to the priestly ministry in the old testament.

Then Paul goes on to say 'in the priestly service (ἱερουργοῦντα [hierourgounta], which means literally serving as a priest, i.e. (sacerdos)

Dictionary: ἱερουργέω
Greek transliteration: hierourgeō
Definition:
to officiate as priest, perform sacred rites

ἱερουργέω

to officiate as priest, perform sacred rites;, in NT to minister in a divine commission, Rom. 15:16*

www.billmounce.com

So Paul is literally comparing himself to an old testament priest in the ministry of Christ. Except instead of the sacrificing of animals he is bring the Gentiles as a pure sacrifice to the alter in Christ.

Hoping2 said:
A minister administers.
Paul gave what he had, to anyone who would listen.
So should we.

Yes I am learning about how his mninisty was so powerful to the early church in bring the gospel to the world. Despite his broken and battered body and the trials and tribulations he experienced he was stayed true to the end.

Hoping2 · Tuesday at 9:31 PM

stevevw said:
They have used the word priestly because that is the Greek word Paul uses ie [I am] a minister (λειτουργός, [leitourgos]) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. Which means minister or public servant. This was referenced to the use of the same word that was attribed to the priestly ministry in the old testament.

Then Paul goes on to say 'in the priestly service (ἱερουργοῦντα [hierourgounta], which means literally serving as a priest, i.e. (sacerdos)

Dictionary: ἱερουργέω
Greek transliteration: hierourgeō
Definition:
to officiate as priest, perform sacred rites

ἱερουργέω

to officiate as priest, perform sacred rites;, in NT to minister in a divine commission, Rom. 15:16*

www.billmounce.com

So Paul is literally comparing himself to an old testament priest in the ministry of Christ. Except instead of the sacrificing of animals he is bring the Gentiles as a pure sacrifice to the alter in Christ.

I don't agree with any of that.

stevevw said:
Yes I am learning about how his mninisty was so powerful to the early church in bring the gospel to the world. Despite his broken and battered body and the trials and tribulations he experienced he was stayed true to the end.

He was the kind of servant we all should be.

stevevw · Tuesday at 10:41 PM

Hoping2 said:
I don't agree with any of that.

Ok fair enough. But why.

Hoping2 said:
He was the kind of servant we all should be.

I think so though its a big ask and if you are committed and want to take on such a life then why not. Every human is capable of putting their life on the line for Christ.

I think you are right in that we need more Pauls today and I think that time is coming. Especially in the west. In nations that have always been persecuting Christians to death this is where you see Christ shinning the brightest. But in the west we have becme complacent and compromised.

I think as a result this brings a awakening so to speak to combat this. I think we are beginning to see this now. I think a true church of Christ like Paul should not be afraid to declare the gospel. What we are beginning to see is the beginning of persecution against Chrisstians in the west which will only get worse.

Just like in the time of pagan Rome which Paul called Babylon the modern day Babylon will persecute Christians. Thats when I think we will see these great preachers and prophets like Paul and the early church rise up again.

Hoping2 · Tuesday at 11:07 PM

stevevw said:
Ok fair enough. But why.

You've gone off on a "priest" tangent that is just not appropriate.
Jesus is our priest now.
And we are ministers of the word, and the life.

stevevw said:
I think so though its a big ask and if you are committed and want to take on such a life then why not. Every human is capable of putting their life on the line for Christ.

The life style is just a part of rebirth through Christ's resurrection.
It should be being manifest by all the repentant.

stevevw said:
I think you are right in that we need more Pauls today and I think that time is coming. Especially in the west. In nations that have always been persecuting Christians to death this is where you see Christ shinning the brightest. But in the west we have becme complacent and compromised.

We don't have to walk like Paul.
We have to walk as Jesus walked.

stevevw said:
I think as a result this brings a awakening so to speak to combat this. I think we are beginning to see this now. I think a true church of Christ like Paul should not be afraid to declare the gospel. What we are beginning to see is the beginning of persecution against Chrisstians in the west which will only get worse.

Just like in the time of pagan Rome which Paul called Babylon the modern day Babylon will persecute Christians. Thats when I think we will see these great preachers and prophets like Paul and the early church rise up again.

I don't see Paul calling anyone "Babylon".

stevevw · Wednesday at 5:15 AM

Hoping2 said:
You've gone off on a "priest" tangent that is just not appropriate.
Jesus is our priest now.
And we are ministers of the word, and the life.

So you don't think there were specially appointed bishops and presbyters over the church as ministers. I think there are two priesthoods. There is the Royal priesthood that Peter mentions which is that we are all made spiritual priests in Christ.

But there is also the specially ordained priesthood ministry which overseers the church. Just like the old testament priesthood covenant was instituted by God through Moses and Aaron. The new covenant priesthood was instituted by Christ in which Paul refers as to being a minister of the priesthood in bringing the Gentiles as a pure sacrifice in Christ. He is ministering over the Gentiles as a fullfillment of the old priesthood.

Hoping2 said:
The life style is just a part of rebirth through Christ's resurrection.
It should be being manifest by all the repentant.

Yes but we also see that there are different levels of responsibility. Paul mentions elders who are worth double honor. Or being unmarried and giving all to Christ was better than marrying. We expect priests to live to a higher standard as they are to be above repraoch. Paul would not qualify this unless there were good Christian men who were not quite above reproach.

So I think there is a Christian calling but an ordaining in Christ as a priest has higher calling as they are actually standing in the place of God to the church. That is why I think the modern day pastor with Ted Talks and entertainment and all is misrepresenting priests and deminishes its expectations.

Hoping2 said:
We don't have to walk like Paul.
We have to walk as Jesus walked.

Yes of course. I am just sayiing Pauls example of walking like Jesus was something to look to. I think this is the point. When a leader of the church walks like Jesus as close as can be this is what stands out rather than the negative examples we get today. If bishops were more like Paul today it would be a different church I think.

Hoping2 said:
I don't see Paul calling anyone "Babylon".

My bad, I always get Peter and Paul mixed up. They were both in Rome around the same time and because Peter was with Mark who was usually with Paul I mix them up. It was Peter who mentions this sorry.

1 Peter 5:13: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark."

Peter was in Rome heading the church and Mark happened to be with him. Not his literal son though.

But still the point is the same that at the time of this letter the Christian church was being persecuted by Rome and Nero who was referred to as Babylon drawing parallels between Rome's power, influence, and perceived moral corruption with that of the ancient Babylonian empire.

Hoping2 · Wednesday at 2:22 PM

stevevw said:
So you don't think there were specially appointed bishops and presbyters over the church as ministers. I think there are two priesthoods. There is the Royal priesthood that Peter mentions which is that we are all made spiritual priests in Christ.

There were bishops/pastors, and there were deacons.
But apostles fulfil neither of those callings.

stevevw said:
But there is also the specially ordained priesthood ministry which overseers the church. Just like the old testament priesthood covenant was instituted by God through Moses and Aaron.

Ugh.
The emulation of a failed OT regime is one of the major mistakes made in the NT.
Jesus is our high priest.
Bishops/pastors are the church's shepherds.
You are over-glamorizing the office of a servntant !

stevevw said:
The new covenant priesthood was instituted by Christ in which Paul refers as to being a minister of the priesthood in bringing the Gentiles as a pure sacrifice in Christ. He is ministering over the Gentiles as a fullfillment of the old priesthood.

You are skewing what he said.

stevevw said:
Yes but we also see that there are different levels of responsibility. Paul mentions elders who are worth double honor. Or being unmarried and giving all to Christ was better than marrying. We expect priests to live to a higher standard as they are to be above repraoch. Paul would not qualify this unless there were good Christian men who were not quite above reproach.

Again, you are basing all that on your prior misinterpretation of what Paul wrote.

stevevw said:
So I think there is a Christian calling but an ordaining in Christ as a priest has higher calling as they are actually standing in the place of God to the church. That is why I think the modern day pastor with Ted Talks and entertainment and all is misrepresenting priests and deminishes its expectations.

Our versions of "priest" is different.

stevevw said:
Yes of course. I am just sayiing Pauls example of walking like Jesus was something to look to. I think this is the point. When a leader of the church walks like Jesus as close as can be this is what stands out rather than the negative examples we get today. If bishops were more like Paul today it would be a different church I think.

His example had no, what is presently defined as, "priests".
God's bishops/pastors are just like Paul would have had them.
The ones who are not...are not of God.

stevevw said:
My bad, I always get Peter and Paul mixed up. They were both in Rome around the same time and because Peter was with Mark who was usually with Paul I mix them up. It was Peter who mentions this sorry.
1 Peter 5:13: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark."
Peter was in Rome heading the church and Mark happened to be with him. Not his literal son though.

Peter is referring to Jerusalem.
The bible has no mention of Peter being in Rome.

stevevw said:
But still the point is the same that at the time of this letter the Christian church was being persecuted by Rome and Nero who was referred to as Babylon drawing parallels between Rome's power, influence, and perceived moral corruption with that of the ancient Babylonian empire.

Think whatever you want.

DragonFox91 · Wednesday at 6:47 PM

The NT elsewhere talks about how all true Christians are priests. The language Paul is using is consistent w/ that.
Bishops / pastors are the leaders of the services

Are you reading the Book of Hebrews, OP? That will help in your research

stevevw · 2025-07-17T01:04:00-0500

Hoping2 said:
There were bishops/pastors, and there were deacons.
But apostles fulfil neither of those callings.

Did not the disciples appoint bishops to continue their ministry. Like Timothy, Titus and Clement. Christ gave the disciples the power and authority to ordain bishops to continue building and protecting Christs church.

Hoping2 said:
Ugh.
The emulation of a failed OT regime is one of the major mistakes made in the NT.

What does this mean. Are you saying the New Testament is misstaken in its teachings.

Hoping2 said:
Jesus is our high priest.
Bishops/pastors are the church's shepherds.
You are over-glamorizing the office of a servntant !

I am merely destinguishing the two as its a common misrepresentation to say that the priesthood ministry within Christs church is the Royal priesthood. They are two seperate things and both are vital to the church. That is why much of Pauls letters are about order and keeping the church true to the teachings.

Christ is the High Priest and it is His representatives that speak His words and remind the church of them. That is what overseering of the church is. Ensuring the church stays true to Christs teachings.

Hoping2 said:
Our versions of "priest" is different.

What do you mean by "Our versions of "priest" is different".

Hoping2 said:
His example had no, what is presently defined as, "priests".

Why does how we presently define priests matter. Or matter more than how Paul or the early church defined priests.

Hoping2 said:
God's bishops/pastors are just like Paul would have had them.
The ones who are not...are not of God.

You would hope so. I am sure there are many Christlike examples behind the scenes. That is ine thing Clement mentions. That the more quiet and meek a bishop is the more they are Christlike. It was their disposition rather than their words and what whats they did say were powerful and respected because people could see Christ in the Bishops.

There was a very high execution rate of the early church bishops and leaders. They were not afraid to stand on Christs truth even if that meant death. We do need more Pauls leading the church to take us through the increasing of wolves knocking on the door. In fact already in the church.

Hoping2 said:
Peter is referring to Jerusalem.
The bible has no mention of Peter being in Rome.

I don't think Peter would call Jeruslam the Holy city of the Jews as Babylon the heathen city. Babylon at that time meant 'those opposed to Gods people'. This city was Rome as Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire and was the persecutor of Gods people under Nero.

1 Peter 5:13 is often interpreted as a reference to Rome, using "Babylon" as a code name. This verse, along with other historical and traditional accounts, suggests Peter's presence in Rome.

Hoping2 · 2025-07-17T14:45:43-0500

stevevw said:
Did not the disciples appoint bishops to continue their ministry. Like Timothy, Titus and Clement. Christ gave the disciples the power and authority to ordain bishops to continue building and protecting Christs church.

It is written that Paul did.
Whether or not any others did is unknown...though not doubted.

stevevw said:
What does this mean. Are you saying the New Testament is misstaken in its teachings.

I'm saying that copying the ways and means of failed traditions is a mistake.
For instance, the OT's priesthood more often than not abandoned their charges to their sins and false doctrines/idols.

stevevw said:
I am merely destinguishing the two as its a common misrepresentation to say that the priesthood ministry within Christs church is the Royal priesthood. They are two seperate things and both are vital to the church. That is why much of Pauls letters are about order and keeping the church true to the teachings.

OK.

stevevw said:
Christ is the High Priest and it is His representatives that speak His words and remind the church of them. That is what overseering of the church is. Ensuring the church stays true to Christs teachings.

OK.

stevevw said:
What do you mean by "Our versions of "priest" is different".

Your version "stands in the place of God", while mine "minds the flock".

stevevw said:
Why does how we presently define priests matter. Or matter more than how Paul or the early church defined priests.

You really don't see the dangers of following one who you say is "standing in the place of God" ?
If your version of a priest says..."Wrest control of Jerusalem from the Arabs/Moslems !", you will do it.
If my version of a priest said the same thing, we would look to scripture for validation.
The fruit represents the seed, and the seed that bore a Christian, is God's seed.

stevevw said:
You would hope so. I am sure there are many Christlike examples behind the scenes. That is ine thing Clement mentions. That the more quiet and meek a bishop is the more they are Christlike. It was their disposition rather than their words and what whats they did say were powerful and respected because people could see Christ in the Bishops.

According to Clement then, Jesus would have made a poor bishop.
He was 'in your face' constantly, with the Pharisees and scribes !

stevevw said:
There was a very high execution rate of the early church bishops and leaders. They were not afraid to stand on Christs truth even if that meant death. We do need more Pauls leading the church to take us through the increasing of wolves knocking on the door. In fact already in the church.

Good bishops preclude "wolves in the church".

stevevw said:
I don't think Peter would call Jeruslam the Holy city of the Jews as Babylon the heathen city. Babylon at that time meant 'those opposed to Gods people'. This city was Rome as Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire and was the persecutor of Gods people under Nero.

I would.
Jerusalem was as corrupt a city as there ever was, and in 70 AD paid for their corruption.

stevevw said:
1 Peter 5:13 is often interpreted as a reference to Rome, using "Babylon" as a code name. This verse, along with other historical and traditional accounts, suggests Peter's presence in Rome.

Without biblical proof, it is all conjecture.

stevevw · 2025-07-18T04:48:03-0500

Hoping2 said:
It is written that Paul did.
Whether or not any others did is unknown...though not doubted.

Yes I agree.

Hoping2 said:
I'm saying that copying the ways and means of failed traditions is a mistake.
For instance, the OT's priesthood more often than not abandoned their charges to their sins and false doctrines/idols.

I am not sure what you mean.

Hoping2 said:
OK.

OK.

Your version "stands in the place of God", while mine "minds the flock".

Does 'minding the flock' include protecting from the wolves who teach a false doctrine. I thought the greatest threat to the church isn't the sinners out in the world but the wolves that come up within the church itself.

Or pretend to be the church as opposed to Christ church. So they are not obviously pointed out through evil acts. But mimick the true church so that even the elect will be fooled.

Acts 20:29-30 I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

Hoping2 said:
You really don't see the dangers of following one who you say is "standing in the place of God" ?
If your version of a priest says..."Wrest control of Jerusalem from the Arabs/Moslems !", you will do it.
If my version of a priest said the same thing, we would look to scripture for validation.
The fruit represents the seed, and the seed that bore a Christian, is God's seed.

The teachings don't say the church must become political and take control back or impose the teachings or Gods Will onto the world.

Pauls teachings and commands are about protecting the church from the outsde world coming in. Which makes sense because if the church was surrounded by a pagan culture and Jewish radicalism then they could in no way become winners in the world and will always be fighting.

But they can certainly stop this from coming into the church. That is why they had to hide and keep the church seperate and protected. That was Pauls biggest worry that the church would allow the wolves in after he went.

Hoping2 said:
According to Clement then, Jesus would have made a poor bishop.
He was 'in your face' constantly, with the Pharisees and scribes !

So was Paul and Clement when it was needed. But Christ also was quiet and meek when he was accused of heresay while actually being the truth. This is why Peter says to be subject to masters and rulers even if they are unjust to you. That by your obedient and pure example that this itself without words will expose the injustice and turn people towards God through Christs example in them.

But when they do speak it should be well respected. But its the Christlike quiet and meek disposition that is a sign that the bishop is within Christ that they will be above reproach and their words will be aligned with Christs I think.

Hoping2 said:
Good bishops preclude "wolves in the church".

Yes thats the idea and we see Paul sometimes say I am glad and happy that the church is doing well and following his teachings and example. But he becomes a different leader when they disobey his teachings lol.

Hoping2 said:
I would.
Jerusalem was as corrupt a city as there ever was, and in 70 AD paid for their corruption.

Yes but spiritually it was still known as the place of Christs borth and crucifixtion and resurrection and where the Holy Temple was which stood regardless for Gods people and Christs redemption and the place He will return.

As opposed to Rome which was the capital of the pagans and had the opposing Temples in Rome like the Pantheon. But it doesn't matter anyway.

Hoping2 said:
Without biblical proof, it is all conjecture.

So you don't believe Peter was ever in Rome.

The importance of the apsotle Paul to the early church

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads