Misunderstanding Paul: How Misreading Scripture turns him into a Villain #4

Yet even more Lessons in Hermeneutics from an Exvangelical

Paul fights Peter for control of the church

Of all the possible nefarious character types out there, a cult leader is one of the worst. We might think of a tyrant like Stalin or Hitler and the destructive power of their dictatorship and imagine them as being the worst, but I think there is something darker when it comes to a cult leader. While they may not have the body count of a dictator, their destructive power is worse. Why? Because they are not destroying temporary bodies; they are corrupting souls and minds which endure beyond death with their dangerous theology. This is why the phrase ‘Bad Theology Hurts People’ is so important. They are leading people away from the true Christ and the true Gospel that can save into a theology of their own imagination. This is what the author of “5 Reasons why the Apostle Paul Sucks” by Insane Things Christians Say essentially accuses Paul of in the final point of her article. In my final response to this article, let’s evaluate this claim and identify the errors that led to it.

Paul the Cult Leader?

The fifth reason the author gives for why Paul is the worst, is because ‘he is everyone’s favorite’. To be honest, I initially had no idea how this is even a critique of Paul, but the author does go on to make a point.

After outlining the history of the Mormon church and the ridiculous story of Joseph Smith and his claims to divine insight and calling as an apostle, which is nuts, she moves onto this realization:

“But what I didn’t realize as a Christian was that Protestant Christianity was the same way, but the apostle Paul is our Joseph Smith. That’s why so many Christians like him so much, the religion was invented by him and not Jesus.”

Her problem, is that apparently, Christianity is the intention of Paul, much like Mormonism is the invention of Joseph Smith. I see this claim pop up every now and then, but let me go through how the author justifies this claim.

Unqualified Apostle?

Her first point is that apostles were supposed to be there with Jesus during his earthly ministry, but Paul wasn’t. In fact, being a Pharisee, he would have been in opposition to Jesus. She argues,

“But we are supposed to believe that Jesus called him to be an apostle after going up into heaven, even though he had a long time to choose a different apostle as he wandered around after being resurrected while he was still on earth. We are supposed to believe that he chose no one then but that Paul was chosen later?”

So, because something happened that doesn’t make sense us, because we would have done something different, it couldn’t have happened? Because God, a perfect being, chose to do something in a way that finite humans wouldn’t, that means it’s bogus? For sure, what the author proposed about choosing a different apostle is a more ‘logical’ approach. But since when did the God who challenges expectations like choosing not to continue the line of promise through the first born, and offering salvation through an act of shame, have to ‘make sense’ to human reason?

Here is our next lesson on this journey: Don’t evaluate the actions of an infinite being with the reasoning and expectations of finite and imperfect humans. Not only is God free to do things as He likes, we should not be surprised when He does something we wouldn’t. I would argue that this fact alone helps show that Scripture is not merely the imaginations of man. If it were, God’s actions in scripture would not surprise us nor the original audience of the Bible.

A Fictional Foundation?

Second, the article also argues that Paul’s Damascus Rd experience was just made up, like Joseph Smith, and that it was impossible that in that brief encounter that he learned everything he needed to go spread the Gospel. But let’s evaluate these claims.

Firstly, why would Paul make it up to become a Christian? If you want to talk about logical options, this one really fails. Remember when we looked at Philippians 3? Why would Paul instantly want to leave his promising future to join a group that he thought were blasphemous heretics deserving of death, let alone start his own version of it? And why would he give up all that, only to end up in prison, give up all his status and wealth, endure beatings and eventually be beheaded, all because of a lie he made up?

It would make as much sense as the all-star quarterback for the greatest college team in the country who would have had his choice of NFL teams, decide he wants to go and be a busker on the streets playing a harp for nickels.

As well as the question of what he was giving up, the Jews were dominating the early church. It wouldn’t have been like he thought he’d be jumping onto the winning side here. There is the reality that cult leaders like Joseph Smith create cult movements to give them power, influence, and control, or amass wealth like David Koresh. However, when you look at how Paul lived and conducted his ministry, not using his power for his own gain, we see the parallels begin to fall apart:

“I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:33–35)

“In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision.” (1Cor 9:14–15)

For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed — God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. (1Thess 2:5–7)

If Paul was starting a cult movement, he would have failed the course.

Also, when we consider that he didn’t use his title to marry a whole bunch of married women either, we can see he was not motivated like Joseph Smith. Paul had neither the purpose nor motivation to create his own Christian Cult. Moreover, Paul didn’t die in a shoot-out trying to escape prison after being arrested for violent and destructive crimes. To make a comparison between Paul and Joseph is actually laughable. Considering Paul’s hatred of ‘the way’ and what Paul left, gave up, and went without, the most logical reason Paul became an influential Christian leader has to be a life changing encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Secondly, while people have Christ encounters (like the original author’s mother that she mentions), Paul’s encounter and vision of the risen Christ that appears to be unique in nature. For the original author, this is just silly and absurd. And of course, when you deny the supernatural, anything that requires it is nonsense — ‘there is no supernatural because there is no supernatural, and anything that seems like evidence for the supernatural is false because there is no supernatural.’ (Such is the circular reasoning of an anti-supernatural worldview).

The author does rightly point out that those with Paul couldn’t see Jesus, but ignores this detail: “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one” (Acts 9:7). So they would have corroborated Paul’s story when they arrived at Damascus. This is unlike Joseph Smith who did everything in secret and had no witnesses. Also, Paul never claimed he was told everything he needed to know in that vision. We aren’t told exactly how and when he learned it apart from the fact it was revealed to him supernaturally at some point (Gal 1:11–12). Even if that did not happen, he would have heard Christians proclaiming the Gospel enough to know it anyway. But did Paul go off on his own and start proclaiming his own version of Christianity?

We do know that after starting to preach the Gospel, he went to Jerusalem, and we see that the apostles accepted him, knowing that he was proclaiming the same message and teaching the same things as them (Gal 2). Someone teaching things in agreement with the original founders, and counting themselves among those leaders, hardly sounds like someone trying to start their own religion and cult.

This is just another reminder that when we study the Bible, to look at all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. A simple reminder of where Paul was, what he gave up, and what he experienced before becoming a Christian, makes the claim he created a fictional account to start his own Christian cult completely nonsensical and illogical. But when you want to ‘tar and feather the villain’, anything you can try and make stick (true or not) becomes convenient.

Paul the Usurping Apostle?

The article’s author then starts to wrap up with this interesting conspiracy theory: Apparently Paul,

“used his friend Luke to make everyone ignore all the other apostles. He insisted on being the most important one. Because Luke wrote the book of Acts and that’s the only book we have about the lives of the apostles after Jesus was ‘resurrected.’”

Is there any evidence supporting this conspiracy theory? Does it stand up to other details? Well, she is right in pointing out that the apostles who were prominent in the beginning do fade out. But many of the apostles in the Gospels get faded behind Peter, James and John too. Did they do the same thing with the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Another key piece of evidence for Paul’s attempted take over is how we never hear of Peter rebuking Paul, but Paul did rebuke Peter in Galatians 2. Apparently, this is Paul’s attempt “to establish himself as the actual head of the church, not Peter, so he assassinates his character to be a more credible expert on the man, Jesus, he never met.” On the surface, this sounds convincing, but again, misunderstandings have created this conspiracy theory. Let’s look at what we actually see in Acts.

First and foremost, the book of Acts is ultimately about the spread of the Gospel to the ends of the earth based on Acts 1:8, and Paul played a significant role in this, so it makes sense to focus on him. But why were other people like Peter, or even Thaddeus faded out? I don’t know. There’s lots of books about historical events and people that don’t answer all the questions I have about their experiences. This because they weren’t written to answer all my questions. I’d love to know what happened with all the other apostles, but considering the cost of writing, Luke would have spend a fortune over the next 20 years producing volumes of books if he did. But that wasn’t Luke’s purpose. He was writing about the continuation of what Jesus started in his earthly ministry (Acts 1:1–2), not a biography of the apostles. But yes, many of the apostles do fade behind Paul. Perhaps Luke didn’t have as much access to the other apostles so it just made sense to tell the story of the spread of the Gospel through the lens of Paul. That’s not a definitive answer, but it makes more sense then this attempted apostolic coup based on misunderstandings and ignoring important details.

The lesson here is that it is important to understand both genre and metanarrative. As we read anything, we need to know what the author aims to achieve. When we read Scripture with this in mind, we help avoid making fictional conclusions about what it is teaching us because it tempers our expectations about what is behind, and what should be in, the text.

There’s a second issue with Paul wanting to overthrow Peter. And that is the author starts with a faulty assumption. She explains,

Jesus literally said he’d build the church on Peter, but do Christians ever quote stuff Peter said when talking about how to get to heaven? No. They quote the book of Romans, which Paul wrote.

The problem is that Jesus did not actually say Peter was to be the foundation and head of the church. But in her defense, this is a common misunderstanding. Jesus did say that Peter was to be a significant stone (Jn 21:15-17), [some say the rock is actually Peter’s confession], but ultimately that He himself is the foundation:

“And I tell you, you are Peter [petros — a loose, smaller, detached stone], and on this rock [petra —a mass of rock” or “a cliff”, (referring to himself: Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, and Luke 20:17)] I will build my church.”

When me make conclusions about something because of what we think is in the Bible because of tradition, we can run into errors. A fairly harmless example is that there were three wise men and that Jesus was born in a barn. Tradition says these things are so, but the Bible doesn’t actually say that. But a more serious example is the claim: “The bible says, ‘God won’t give you more than you can handle.’” It doesn’t. But people think it does. And when we make this assumption a starting point, it can lead us to erroneous conclusions about suffering. The original author believes that the Bible teaches that Peter was the head of the church when it doesn’t. In fact it explicitly teaches against it, thus leading her to assume Paul would want to topple his leadership based on the confrontation of Galatians 2.

But Paul didn’t even believe Peter was the head of the church. In fact, Paul calls Christ, not Peter, or even himself (hardly a claim to cult leadership or arrogance), the head of the church (e.g. Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). So to think that Paul would want to try to usurp Peter makes no sense. In fact, in Galatians 2 when writing about the confrontation, Paul affirms Peter’s calling to the Jews as an apostle (Gal 2:8). But what about the rebuke in Galatians 2? Was this an attempt at character assassination and defamation?

Paul’s whole point in Galatians 1 and 2 is that the gospel is from God and therefore higher than any person, even someone with the status of Peter. But more importantly, when we get to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, we see James - and not Peter - in charge (Act 15:13-21). Paul was present and would have recognized this. Moreover, in Galatians 2:1-10, we see that when Paul came to Jerusalem he saw James, Peter, and John, he submitted to them. Likewise, towards the end of Acts, Paul submits to James’ suggestion to go participate in the vow ceremony at the temple (Acts 21:17–26). So it seems that it is James, the brother of the Lord, who Paul should be trying to topple, not Peter. But he doesn’t. Thus, when you read tradition into scripture, rather than what it actually says, you end up getting it wrong.

So the fact that Paul’s teachings were in line with what the apostles who lived with Jesus taught, that he gave up a very promising future to ‘join the enemy’ that he was successfully dominating, and that he humbled himself under the authority of James, Peter and John, it should be obvious that Paul was not trying to invent his own religion or some Christianity 2.0. What makes more sense is that Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ and became an influential part of recording the shared apostolic teachings, not its inventor.

Power Hungry Apostle?

In line with an earlier point she made about Paul’s arrogance, here are the author’s final words in the article to drive home his cult leader status and coup:

“He put the spotlight on himself and wrote some horrific things. And yes, I f — hate him for it. He sucks.”

It’s clear that people who make this claim about Paul don’t understand Paul very well (which as been covered over these four articles). Just some soundbites mixed with putting words in his mouth. Does someone who says, “For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle” sound arrogant to you? Does someone who endures persecution to serve the church sound like someone who put the spotlight on themselves? Does someone who refuses to take credit for the church growing, but rather attributes it to the Lord (1 Cor 3), sound like someone full of themselves? Cult leaders make their movement indispensable from themselves - this last reference makes such a claim impossible. And although Paul is highly quoted by modern Christians, and Christians over the Millenia, this is the product of how he was the recognized author of a significant chunk of scripture, not a conspiratorial design of Paul.

As for comparing Paul with Joseph Smith, when we read what Joseph Smith said about himself, and how he abused his power, we can see how nonsensical this comparison is.

Here is a quote from Joseph Smith:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam…Neither Paul, John, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”

Notice how different this is to Paul :

“ I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.”

To come to the conclusion that Paul became some kind of pick me cult leader, you have to ignore A LOT of what he said about himself. If the original author teaches us anything about hermeneutics, it is that proof texts, tradition, and eisegesis do not create reliable interpretations. Therefore, just because someone quotes scripture to support their point, that doesn’t mean they used it well, or accurately.

Final Thoughts

As I bring this response series to the article from

Insane Things Christians Say

, I want to remind us about the reality of people misrepresenting Scripture to make points. This happens intentionally through deception, (which I don’t think is true of the author), and unintentionally through ignorance (of scripture and history), bias, and sound bite theology.

To conclude, I will leave you with the words of the Apostle Peter (the author’s favorite when she was growing up). Although separated by thousands of years, I believe Peter was writing about people who make claims like the ones in this article when he said:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

(Side note: Is Peter is affirming the apostleship of Paul? Hardly sounds like someone being pushed out. Moreover, there’s good reason to say Peter wrote this after Paul’s death — a perfect time to expose the insurrectionist. But that’s the kind of thing you get wrong when we don’t take all the details in Scripture into account, but I digress…)

16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.