Who went further in the knowledge of God—the apostle Paul or the apostle John? The following comparison points to an answer to this question that may be at odds with certain perspectives that many believers have been taught, especially concerning their understanding of gospel ministry.

COMPARISON

Based on the information that we have available, eight points of comparison between Paul and John should be noted:

Contact with John the Baptist

Paul : no information about his having contact personally with John the Baptist

John: disciple of John the Baptist

Discipleship experience with Jesus

Paul: disciple of Jesus after His resurrection appearance to Him; no information that Paul knew Him personally during His earthly ministry

John: disciple of Jesus since His earthly ministry who knew Him personally

Extent of knowledge of Jesus’ Miracles

Paul: no information that he knew of the miracles that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

John: had first-hand knowledge of a multitude of signs that Jesus did that were not recorded in Scripture

Contact with Mary

Paul: no information about contact with Mary, the mother of Jesus

John: knew Mary personally; cared for her in his home after the Crucifixion; thus he very likely knew a vast amount of information about Jesus that we have no way of determining if Paul also had that information

Contact with the glorified Jesus

Paul: saw the glorified Jesus

John: last disciple to see the glorified Jesus

Vision of heaven

Paul: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard things that he was not allowed to share; thus we have no way of determining what Paul did or did not know as a result of that vision

John: had a vision of heaven and saw and heard a vast number of things that he was directed to write about for our profit; we have no way to know if Paul ever knew of this information or not; it is very likely that he never knew all that John knew in this respect

Profiting from other Scripture

Paul:

-likely had no knowledge of what John wrote in at least his letters and in Revelation;

-perhaps he also had only limited knowledge of much of what John wrote in his Gospel;

-may have profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-very likely did not have any access to the book of Jude

John:

-likely profited from all of Paul’s epistles for at least a decade and a half before writing any of his books

-very likely profited from 1 & 2 Peter and Hebrews

-likely profited from the book of Jude

Authoring of Scripture

Paul:

-Wrote 13 epistles; did not write a Gospel; did not write any book comparable to Revelation

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT in the current topical order

-Did not write any of the final five books of the NT chronologically

John:

-Wrote 3 epistles (7 more epistles in Revelation 2-3); wrote the final Gospel long after the Synoptic Gospels (and also all the Pauline epistles) had been written; also wrote Revelation— John thus wrote three different genres of inspired NT books while Paul only wrote one; he has the unique honor of being the only one chosen by God to do so

-Wrote four of the five final books of the NT in the current topical order, including the last book

-Wrote all five of the final books of the NT chronologically; John thus gave us all the final inspired revelation that we have

DISCUSSION

Based on this information, it seems that we should hold that John, and not Paul, had the most profound knowledge of the things of God of any of the writers of Scripture. His writings, therefore, should be viewed as at least as theologically advanced as anything that Paul wrote.

Thus any analysis of a subject that does not thoroughly account for whatever John may have written about that subject is necessarily lacking and should not be accorded ultimate authoritative status for the doctrine and practice of the people of God. Moreover, when formulating our understanding of any subject, we should value whatever John may have written about that subject at least as much as anything that Paul has written.

APPLICATION

A key area in which our understanding of biblical truth and our practice needs to be addressed in light of the discussion above is our understanding of apostolic gospel ministry. Specifically, we must recognize that God did not give us everything that we need to know about this subject through Paul’s writings. For if he had, what need would there have been for yet another Gospel to be written after the Synoptics and the Pauline Epistles had already been written?

We must not, therefore, attach undue importance to passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at the expense of key truths that we are taught through John’s record of Jesus’ own dealings with people in salvation accounts. For example, when each of the salvation accounts in John 3, 4, and 5 are thoroughly analyzed, we see that Jesus evangelized lost people with an emphasis on truths that are not mentioned explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (e.g., Jesus as the One sent by the Father; Christ as God’s judicial agent).

Our understanding, therefore, of apostolic gospel ministry cannot be limited basically to what Paul taught in this passage. We must fill out our understanding of it through truths that are taught in many other key passages, including several that are found in John 3-5.

First Samuel 28:6 says that Saul did inquire of the Lord, but 1 Chronicles 10:14 says that he did not:

1Sa 28:6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

1Ch 10:13 ¶ So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; ¹⁴ And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

How should we understand these seemingly contradictory statements?

John W. Haley argues,

It is sufficient to notice that two different Hebrew words [שָׁאוּל֙  vs. דָרַ֥שׁ ] of diverse meaning are employed here. Or, it may be correctly remarked that Saul’s attempts at inquiry were of so unworthy a nature that it would be an abuse of language to speak of him as really “inquiring of Jehovah.” (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, 360)

Matthew Henry comments on 1 Samuel 28:6,

In this distress Saul enquired of the Lord, v. 6. Need drives those to God who in the day of their prosperity slighted his oracles and altars. Lord, in trouble have they visited thee, Isa. 26:16. Did ever any seek the Lord and not find him? Yes, Saul did; the Lord answered him not, took no notice either of his petitions or of his enquiries; gave him no directions what to do, nor any encouragement to hope that he would be with him. Should he be enquired of at all by such a one as Saul? Eze. 14:3. No, he could not expect an answer of peace, for, 1. He enquired in such a manner that it was as if he had not enquired at all. Therefore it is said (1 Chr. 10:14), He enquired not of the Lord; for he did it faintly and coldly, and with a secret design, if God did not answer him, to consult the devil. He did not enquire in faith, but with a double unstable mind. 2. He enquired of the Lord when it was too late, when the days of his probation were over and he was finally rejected. Seek the Lord while he may be found, for there is a time when he will not be found. 3. He had forfeited the benefit of all the methods of enquiry. Could he that hated and persecuted Samuel and David, who were both prophets, expect to be answered by prophets? Could he that had slain the high priest, expect to be answered by Urim? Or could he that had sinned away the Spirit of grace, expect to be answered by dreams? No. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 431; bold is in italics in original)

On 1 Chronicles 10:14, he remarks,

It is said (1 Sa. 28:6) that Saul did enquire of the Lord and he answered him not: but here it is said, Saul did not enquire of God; for he did not till he was brought to the last extremity, and then it was too late. (Ibid., 567; bold is in italics in original)

Robert Jamieson comments on the words and enquired not of the Lord in 1 Chronicles 10:14,

He had done so in form (1 Sam. xxviii. 6), but not in the spirit of a humble penitent, nor with the believing confidence of a sincere worshipper. His enquiry was, in fact, a mere mockery, and his total want of all right religious impressions was manifested by his rushing from God to a wretched impostor in the service of the devil. (JFB, 1:475).

These sources provide satisfactory explanations that resolve the apparent contradiction between 1 Samuel 28:6 and 1 Chronicles 10:14.

These passages should warn us about inquiring of God in a manner, in a way, or at a point in time such that He would regard our doing so as our not inquiring of Him at all.

In Caesarea, at his final defense before he was taken to be tried before Caesar in Rome, Paul testified before King Agrippa, Bernice, the chief captains, the principal men of the city, and the governor, Festus (Acts 25:23-26:32).He concluded his testimony before them by saying, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds” (26:29). Does all mean all in this statement?

Several commentators believe that Paul desired that his entire audience would become Christians. Bock remarks:

In verse 29 Paul’s reply is that whether it takes a short or a long time . . . , he would pray that all who are listening to him might become a Christian as he is, with one exception, namely, that they not share his chains of imprisonment. The reference to prayer indicates that Paul desires to intercede on behalf of all the audience to become Christians. . . . The reply clearly expresses his heart.

—Darrell L. Bock, Acts in ECNT, 723

Polhill comments:

His real prayer was that not just Agrippa but everyone in the audience room would become a Christian believer. At this point Paul may have made several gestures, turning and directly addressing all in the room.

—John B. Polhill, Acts in NAC, 509

Peterson says:

Paul expresses his desire to Agrippa in very personal terms . . . In so doing, he consciously widens his appeal to everyone present. Previously, he acknowledged that many in his audience might be skeptical about talk of resurrection of the dead (v. 8). However, just as in Athens he preached about ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ to Jews and Gentiles alike (17:18), so now he addresses all together.

—David G. Peterson, Acts in PNTC, 676.

In agreement with the views of these scholars, taking Paul’s use of all to mean the totality of his hearers on this occasion seems clearly to be the only natural reading of the text.

Given the composition of his audience on this occasion, Paul’s statement is thus striking because we do not read of any previous evangelistic encounters that he had had with authority figures and other prominent people that would have given him hope that all his present audience might become Christians (see Acts 17:32-34 for an example of an encounter with authorities that did not result in the salvation of his entire audience). Even so, Paul still desired that they would.

We should learn from Paul’s example here that in spite of our previous negative experiences and regardless of the seemingly unlikely-to-become-Christians composition of an audience whom we are evangelizing, we should desire that they all would become Christians.

Paul repeatedly teaches that salvation is not earned through works that people do (Rom. 4:4-8; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-6). A focus on this teaching, however, has led many to overlook an equally important Pauline evangelistic teaching concerning works: Paul emphasized that in his evangelism of all people everywhere, he challenged them that sinners must “do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20).

Peterson explains this emphasis well:

Paul recalls the geographical scope of his mission, ‘first to those in Damascus’ (cf. 9:20-25), ‘then to those in Jerusalem’ (cf. 9:26-30) ‘and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles’. He indicates that he conveyed the same message to all, declaring (apēngellon, ‘reporting’, ‘announcing’, ‘proclaiming’) ‘that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds’ (cf. 20:21). Challenged to preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins and a share in the messianic salvation …, Paul was as serious as John the Baptist in calling for deeds to demonstrate the genuineness of repentance (cf. Lk. 3:8; Acts 20:21). He understood conversion ‘not only in terms of forgiveness and faith, but also in terms of a full ethical transformation’

—David. G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles in PNTC, 670

Based on Paul’s testimony to this crucial emphasis that he had in his evangelism, we should be diligent to challenge the people to whom we witness “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20).

At both Pentecost and Gentecost, the two premier accounts in Scripture of apostolic evangelism, Peter testified to Jesus’ miracles:

Act 2:22 ¶ Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

His testimony on both occasions highlights the work of God the Father in Jesus’ doing the miracles that He did: “miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him”; “healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

Peter’s example of doing so with both Jews and Gentiles strongly suggests to me that we should likewise emphasis the work of God the Father in our evangelistic testimony to Jesus’ miracles.

The account of Saul’s conversion comprises the majority of Acts 9 (31 of the 43 verses in the chapter), and many have exposited this account carefully. Following that conversion account, however, Luke records two striking instances of many people being saved about which fewer people probably have heard  a careful exposition.

These two instances of great evangelistic success are noteworthy because of what we know about what took place on these occasions. Even more remarkable is what we are not told about them.

Lydda and Sharon

In the first, Peter dramatically healed a man in Lydda who had been paralyzed for eight years by proclaiming to him that Jesus Christ was making him whole (9:32-34). As a result, everyone who was living in Lydda and Sharon saw him and “turned to the Lord” (9:35).

Luke does not say anything about any testimony of the gospel in this account, and yet, we read of two entire cities being converted. Are we therefore supposed to understand that these masses of people were saved without hearing any gospel testimony? If so, how were they saved?

Joppa

Luke then relates an even more remarkable account of Petrine ministry. Joppa was a city near Lydda (9:38a). Because a beloved widow among the believers in Joppa had passed away, and the disciples had heard that Peter was nearby in Lydda (9:36-37a-b), they decided to send for him (9:38c).

Coming with the two men who had been sent to appeal to him to come (9:38c-39), Peter unhesitatingly acted prayerfully to raise her from the dead (9:40) and present her alive to the believers who were there (9:40-41). This marvelous manifestation of God’s power became known throughout the entire city (9:42a), and “many believed in the Lord” (9:42b).

As with the preceding account, Luke provides no information about any gospel testimony being given in Joppa at this time. How then were these many people saved?

Interpretation

These two accounts record numerous people who turned to the Lord and believed in Him after receiving testimony either visually or verbally about His miraculous working through Peter. Because elsewhere Scripture makes clear that people cannot believe in Him of whom they have not heard (Rom. 10:14), we must conclude that Luke intends for us to understand that there was gospel testimony of some sort to these who were saved, even though he does not record it.

Two other passages support this interpretation. First, Luke records that all the multitude of believers who were present at the proceedings of the Jerusalem council kept silent and listened intently to Barnabas and Paul as they declared “what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” (Acts 15:12).

In the flow of thought in the passage, this testimony from Paul and Barnabas follows the account of how the Gentiles in Caesarea had heard the word of the gospel from Peter and believed it to be saved (15:7-11). Because what was at stake at the Council was how were the Gentiles to be saved (15:1), it cannot be that Luke intends us to understand that these two successive testimonies bore evidence to the Council of two differing ways in which Gentiles had been saved: some were saved by hearing the gospel and believing it (15:7-11), but others were saved only by hearing and seeing the miracles and wonders that God was doing among them (15:12).

This interpretation is confirmed by a second passage that also confirms the interpretation provided above of the two accounts in Acts 9:

“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Heb. 2:3-4).

God’s miraculous working among the apostolic company (including therefore what happened in Lydda and Joppa) thus was His acting to witness along with as well as to those who had provided verbal testimony (of the very great salvation that had been first spoken of by the Lord) both to the writer of Hebrews and to others.

Conclusion

Based on this handling of the accounts in Acts 9 and related passages, whenever we read in the NT of people being saved, we are to understand that they received testimony to the gospel prior to their being saved, even if the account does not say anything directly about such testimony being given to them.