Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Romans 1:1 ASV

All letters and other written communications, in New Testament times, were written upon parchments and conveyed to their recipients in rolled-up form; and that ancient style of letter required, as a practical consideration, that the signature of the writer be at the beginning.

Otherwise, it would have been necessary to unroll the entire scroll to find the name of the sender.

Therefore, Paul followed the custom of the times in placing his name along with the salutation in the beginning of the epistle.

Up until the time of his conversion, Paul was known as Saul of Tarsus.

SAUL, the first name under which this great man appears in the New Testament, means DEMANDED, and ranks among the great names in Jewish history, that being the name of their first king.

PAUL, on the other hand, means LITTLE, and could have signified Paul’s smallness of stature; however, the name is Gentile, being the name of the apostle’s first distinguished convert, Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, and Charles Hodge suggested the possibility that the new Gentile name of the apostle derived from that conversion.

It was common among the Jews to mark some outstanding event in a person’s life with a change of his name, as in the case of Abraham (Genesis 17:5), Jacob (Genesis 32:38), and Peter (John 1:42); and thus it appears that even in such a detail as this, Paul was “not a whit behind the chiefest apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5).

The first use of the name PAUL for this apostle is recorded in Acts 13:9 upon the occasion of the proconsul’s conversion; but, significantly, it appears to be a name that was already his, and is mentioned before the conversion took place.

Despite this, the dramatic switch from one name to another certainly took place on that occasion; and if, indeed, the name PAUL was adopted at that time out of regard to so distinguished a convert, this great apostle reminds one of Hercules, who, in the first great labor of strangling the Nemean lion, took the lion’s skin and wore it ever afterwards, Paul forever afterwards wearing the name of the proconsul of Cyprus.

Both names were appropriate for the great ambassador to the Gentiles, and it is altogether possible that his parents gave him both names, providentially, and that his great mission to the Gentiles naturally resulted in the shift of emphasis to his Gentile name.

Servant of Jesus Christ …

The Greek word [DOULOS], from which the English translation “servant” is taken, actually means BONDSLAVE and is a very strong word indicating a number or very important things.

It means that, as Christ’s slave, Paul was entitled to hearing and obedience on the part of all people, it being an ancient axiom that the honor and dignity of the owner were inherent in his slave, mistreatment of the slave being legally construed as mistreatment of the owner.

Thus at the very outset, Paul announced the premise upon which he was entitled to be heard even in Rome.

The use of the term BONDSLAVE also means that in conscience, doctrine, and conduct, Paul’s life was utterly in subjection to Christ.

In the third place, due to the frequent use of this word in conjunction with APOSTLE, it implies an official capacity in the person so designated (2 Peter 1:1 etc.).

Therefore, Paul was not claiming by use of this word, merely that he was living the Christian life, but that as a bondslave of Christ he had a message from God that all people are obligated to heed.

That such was his intent derives from the fact that he immediately connected the office of a bondslave with that of an apostle.

Called to be an apostle …

The words “to be” are usually printed in italics to show that they were not in the Greek and were merely supplied by the translators; and in this instance they would have been better left out.

Paul was not telling what he was called to be, but what he was! Although the title of apostle has been somewhat loosely applied, the meaning is rather strict.

As a strict official designation, the word “apostle” is confined to those men selected and commissioned by Christ himself to deliver in his name the message of salvation.

In this context, it should be noted that Christ himself is the one who selected the apostles and conferred upon them that name. “And of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Luke 6:13).

It is precisely in that strictest meaning of the title that Paul’s salutation and identification of himself as an apostle should be understood.

He was a “called” apostle, not by men, but by Christ himself; and he invariably laid claim to the full authority of the office.


The apostles of Jesus Christ constituted the most interesting group of men ever to live upon earth.

They were men of humble origin, men that the world would hesitate to call learned or wise when measured by ordinary standards, men who were never honored by any university with a degree, or elected to any learned society of intellectuals, men who never wrote any books, as the term is usually understood, who were never elected to any pubic office, who never became wealthy, and who, with the possible exception of Paul, would never have been remembered by posterity, had it not been for their association with Jesus Christ.

Their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, projected them into the spotlight and focal center of all subsequent history.

For nearly two thousand years already, children have learned with eagerness the names of the Twelve Apostles, and gray-headed men and women have gone down to the grave repeating the blessed words these men delivered to the human race.

It must be conceded that the apostles of Christ have exerted and continue to exert a greater influence upon humanity than that which may be attributed to any other human source.

Who were permitted to serve as apostles?

(1) Only those whom Jesus chose for this office were ever, in any real sense, apostles, this being a necessary deduction from Acts 1:24, “Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen.”

In that remarkable event, the apostles themselves had been able to narrow the choice for Judas’ successor to the two men alone who fulfilled the other qualifications for the apostleship;

(2) having been companions of the Master from the time of John’s baptism until Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:22); and

(3) having been witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, that is, having seen him alive after his death and burial (Acts 1:22).

Paul’s apostleship was different only in this, that he had not been a personal companion of Jesus during the Lord’s ministry, as were the others; but, by special appearances to Paul, the Lord commissioned him as a true “witness” of the resurrection (Acts 26:16), that commission as an apostle being by Christ himself and not by men (Galatians 1:1).

What were their powers?

They were infallible teachers of God’s word, being inspired in the highest sense of that word, their infallibility being attested by the signs and miracles that accompanied their preaching (Mark 16:20).

Peter raised the dead to life again (Acts 9:41); Paul suffered no hurt from the vicious bite of a deadly viper (Acts 28:5); and many other signs and miracles were wrought by them and all the apostles.

They could convey the gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of their hands; and one must agree with Charles Hodge that it was:

The power of working miracles in confirmation of their mission … (It was) this power they could communicate to others by the laying on of their hands.

It was never claimed by any of the apostles that any perpetual office could thus be transferred; and the notion of any line of succession to such an office as the apostleship is illogical and opposed to the scriptures.

Who were their successors?

Only one of the apostles ever had a successor, namely, Judas Iscariot, whose successor, Matthias, was chosen by the Lord to take the office from which Judas “by transgression, fell” (Acts 1:25 KJV), the significance of this arising out of the circumstance that the death of two of the apostles is recorded in the New Testament, whereas only one of them required a successor, it being nowhere recorded that any successor was chosen for James (Acts 12:2).

The difference in there having been chosen a successor for Judas, but none for James, may be explained only by the fact that the scriptures attribute the removal of Judas from his office to his transgression, and not to his death, which leads to the conclusion that death never removed, and indeed cannot remove, an apostle from his office.

It is this tremendous truth that underlies the promise of Jesus to the Twelve that, “In the times of the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).

This promise of the Master established the principle that death could not remove an apostle, nor interfere with the discharge of their apostolic duties, their reign being co-extensive with that of Christ himself.

As to HOW the apostles are reigning today, it appears that their word, the inspired message which they delivered, and which is still preserved and binding upon the Christians of all ages, that their word is the means of. their continual authority, or reign, over the church.

That the apostolic office was unique and limited, absolutely, to the Twelve plus Paul, is further corroborated by the apostle John’s vision of the foundations of the Eternal City, upon which are inscribed “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14)

Therefore, how impossible it is to believe the claims of any so-called successors to apostolic dignity and authority of the Twelve, whether in this age or any other!

Separated unto the gospel of God …

This reference to separation corresponds to the setting apart of the prophets of the Old Testament for their divine mission, as mentioned in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5), and strongly suggests the parity of honor and authority which the apostles of the New Testament enjoyed, along with the mighty prophets of the Old Testament.

This oneness of dignity, embracing both prophets and apostles, was mentioned by Peter, thus: “Ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2).

There is, of course, a certain sense in which all Christians are separated, or sanctified; but far more is intended here.

On Paul’s part, there was a total, absolute, and unvarying dedication to the work of preaching Christ to all people.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16 ASV

“Today, in this Day The Lord has made. And these are the times through which God has decided we shall live.” Check out the Todd Herman Show Podcast. Once a guest host for Rush Limbaugh, Todd is a Christian talk show host, who has put God at the center and politics at the edges of his show. Click on image to go to and listen to the podcast for free.

It's Your Turn. Write Something. Say Something.