Paul was a heretic and a false Apostle. His Gospel was diametrically different to that of the 12 true Apostles and even the Messiah. Yeshua taught fidelity to Torah Judaism and Paul taught that the Torah was a burden; a bondage to be cast aside in favor of “free” grace. No one, being intellectually honest, could read the Tanak and the Gospel and then conclude that Paul writes in concert with their truths. This is a simple and undeniable fact.

One of the single most common points that the followers of Paul present as a refutation to the points above is that Paul MUST be a true Apostle because Peter affirmed his position and calling. They quote the following from 2 Peter 3:15-16:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that G-d gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

These two sentences are presented as proof positive that Paul was an Apostle who heard directly from G-d and that his writings are on par with the Holy Scriptures.  This affirmation is reinforced by the fact that it comes from Peter who is the most senior of the Apostles. Therefore, we have, from the highest possible authority, a clear and concise confirmation that Paul is a legitimate Apostle. Indeed, if one examines the deeper intention of these excerpt, Paul is being presented as the highest Apostle. This might have a great deal of weight if it were not for the fact that it isn’t true. The 2^nd epistle of Peter is a forgery. As it turns out, Peter did NOT write 2 Peter and this is well known among scholars. Indeed, it is nearly universally accepted that Peter was not the author of these words. In fact, it was even known among the earliest church fathers.

Eusebius of Caesarea was an early historian of the Church. In his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 3 (written about A.D. 324) he discusses questions of canonicity of 2^nd Peter. He cited the following:

“One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon… Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders.”

Theologian Michael D. Marlowe commented to these passages saying:

“οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν. The authorship of the second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, §6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed. Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars. Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the second century,—some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question), Einleitung, p. 436 sqq.”

Biblical scholar Werner Kümmel agrees with this this position, stating, “It is certain, therefore, that 2 Peter does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged” Another scholar, Stephen L Harris, concurs stating that “Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.” In addition, scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that “most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author.”

It is beyond dispute that Peter was not the author of this epistle. It is pseudepigraphical at best and a deceptive forgery at worst. In any case, it is by no means authoritative or remotely reliable. It is likely that by the third century people were starting to see through the non-biblical musings of Paul. This letter was likely written as a propaganda piece intending to provide Paul some legitimacy. Obviously, it is still used for that purpose today.

Did Peter affirm Paul? Did Peter state that Paul was a true Apostle who heard directly from G-d? Did Peter say that Paul’s writings were divine in nature? No, he did not. But what if he had? Playing devil’s advocate and taking the side of those desperate to keep Paul on his seat of pseudo-divinity – ignoring scholarship – what if Peter had affirmed Paul…would it matter? Should it matter? The answer is, no. It wouldn’t matter nor should it matter!

The standard by which one’s theological teachings are judged is whether or not those teachings line up with truth. How do we know if it is true? What is our benchmark? The answer is the Tanakh, period.  Consider the politician that you most admire, whoever that may be. Now imagine if they “endorsed” Adolf Hitler! Would that matter to you? Would you suddenly embrace Hitler as a leader or philosopher that you accept? Would you convert to his doctrines based upon the fact that he was “affirmed” by someone you respect? What if one hundred such persons endorsed him? Would that strengthen the claim that he is a valid and true figure? Of course not! Why? Because what he “preached” is in contradiction to Divine truth! So it is with Paul. Peter did NOT affirm him but even if he had it doesn’t change the fact that Paul’s message did not align with the truths of the Tanakh. ~ Rabbi Mordecai Griffin