The Fractured Body: How Apostolic Missteps Shattered Yahshua’s Vision
The Fractured Body: How Apostolic Missteps Shattered Yahshua’s Vision
A Note on Yahshua’s Name
Before we begin, a word on the name of the Messiah. In this story, we use “Yahshua” and “Yahoshua” interchangeably to honor His given Hebrew name, rooted in the meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” The Greek rendering “Jesus” has been widely adopted, but returning to Yahshua/Yahoshua reconnects us to His cultural and spiritual identity, aligning with the story’s theme of returning to His unadulterated teachings. This choice underscores the call to strip away layers of institutional distortion and rediscover the simplicity of His message.
The Seeds of Division: A Story of Misguided Leadership
In the wake of Yahshua’s resurrection and ascension, His followers stood at a crossroads. Yahshua, the humble teacher from Nazareth, had left a radical blueprint: a kingdom of servants, not rulers (Mark 10:42-45), where love, humility, and mutual submission would bind believers together as one body (John 17:20-23). His command was clear: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15), not to build hierarchies or exclude others, but to serve and share the good news of the coming kingdom. Yet, within a generation, the seeds of division were sown—not by malice, but by human tendencies toward control, fear, and exclusion. The apostles, particularly Paul, played a pivotal role in this shift, setting in motion a fracture that has splintered Christianity into over 40,000 denominations today. This is a story of how well-meaning leaders, caught in the grip of unrecognized social and psychological behaviors, strayed from Yahshua’s vision, leaving us a scattered and disconnected body of believers.
Paul’s Authoritarian Turn: The Rise of Hierarchy
Paul, once Saul of Tarsus, was a man of zeal. His dramatic encounter with Yahshua on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6) transformed him into a fervent preacher, but his approach to leadership often diverged from Yahshua’s model. While Yahshua taught that “the greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11), Paul’s letters reveal a shift toward structure and control, laying the foundation for what sociologists call Authoritarian Leadership and Institutionalization Theory.
In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, Paul outlines qualifications for bishops, deacons, and elders, establishing a hierarchy that contrasts with Yahshua’s anti-hierarchical stance. Yahshua warned against lording authority over others, saying, “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… but it shall not be so among you” (Luke 22:25-26). Yet Paul’s system of appointed leaders—bishops to oversee, deacons to serve under them—created a top-down structure that prioritized control over mutual service. This move toward institutionalization, as described by Max Weber’s Institutionalization Theory, transformed the early church from a fluid, charismatic movement into a rigid organization, where power concentrated in the hands of a few.
Paul’s exclusion of women further deepened this divide. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, he writes, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” This stance starkly contrasts with Yahshua’s inclusive ministry, where women like Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna were key supporters (Luke 8:1-3) and the first witnesses to the resurrection (John 20:16-18). By sidelining women, Paul not only contradicted Yahshua’s example but also reinforced Social Closure, a sociological concept where groups restrict access to power to maintain exclusivity. This exclusion alienated half the body of believers, planting seeds of resentment and division.
Fear and Control: Paul’s In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics
Paul’s writings also reveal a reliance on fear to unify his communities, a tactic rooted in In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics. In Galatians 2:4, he warns of “false brethren secretly brought in” who sought to “spy out our freedom… so that they might bring us into slavery.” In 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, he denounces “false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ,” likening them to Satan. These warnings, while aimed at protecting his gospel of justification by faith, fostered a siege mentality, where external threats justified internal control. This mirrors what psychologist Robert Jay Lifton describes as thought reform, where fear of outsiders binds followers to the leader’s authority.
Paul’s aggressive stance against other apostles exacerbated this. In Galatians 2:11-14, he publicly confronts Peter (Cephas) for hypocrisy, accusing him of withdrawing from Gentile believers under pressure from Jewish Christians. Paul’s approach, however, ignored Yahshua’s teaching on conflict resolution: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone… But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you” (Matthew 18:15-16). By bypassing this process and publicly shaming Peter, Paul modeled division rather than reconciliation, further fracturing the early church. His claim in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was “not in the least inferior to these super-apostles” reveals a competitive spirit, undermining the unity Yahshua prayed for in John 17:21.
Peter’s Shift: From Servant to Centralizer
Peter, too, contributed to the drift from Yahshua’s vision. In the early chapters of Acts, Peter emerges as a unifying figure, leading the disciples in communal living and bold preaching (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-35). Yet, as the church grew, Peter’s leadership helped formalize a centralized structure. By Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, with Peter and James presiding, issued decrees binding on Gentile believers (Acts 15:19-29). While intended to resolve disputes, this move toward centralized authority diverged from Yahshua’s call for servant leadership without rulers. Sociologically, this reflects Hegemonic Control, where leaders impose ideological uniformity to maintain power, stifling the diversity Yahshua embraced in His global mission (Matthew 28:19).
Peter’s early inclusivity, welcoming Gentiles like Cornelius (Acts 10), aligned with Yahshua’s vision. But the institutionalization of the church under his and others’ leadership shifted the focus from servanthood to governance, laying the groundwork for denominational splits. As Weber’s Institutionalization Theory predicts, charismatic movements often harden into bureaucracies, losing their original spirit. Peter’s role, though less authoritarian than Paul’s, contributed to this shift, moving the church away from Yahshua’s decentralized, servant-led model.
The Fruit of Missteps: 40,000 Denominations
The apostolic missteps—Paul’s hierarchies, exclusion of women, and fear-based rhetoric; Peter’s centralization—set a precedent for division. These behaviors, rooted in Authoritarian Leadership, In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics, and Social Closure, were likely unrecognized by the apostles themselves. They acted with conviction, believing they were protecting Yahshua’s message. Yet, their reliance on control and exclusion sowed discord that has multiplied over centuries.
Today, Christianity’s fragmentation into over 40,000 denominations (a figure often cited in religious studies, such as the World Christian Encyclopedia) reflects this legacy. Each schism—whether over doctrine, leadership, or practice—echoes the early church’s shift from Yahshua’s servant-based unity to human-driven structures. Paul’s emphasis on doctrinal purity (1 Timothy 1:3-7) and Peter’s council-like governance (Acts 15) created a template for later churches to split over disagreements, from the Great Schism of 1054 to the Protestant Reformation and beyond. The Herd Mentality fostered by fear of “false teachers” or “infiltrators” continues in modern denominations, where groups define themselves against others, perpetuating division.
Yahshua’s Simple Plan: A Lost Vision
What if the apostles had clung to Yahshua’s simple teachings? Yahshua envisioned a body of believers united in love, not divided by hierarchy or fear. He taught, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). His model was one of mutual submission, where no one ruled but all served (Mark 9:35). He sent His disciples to share the kingdom’s good news without appointing bishops or excluding women (Luke 10:1-12). Had the apostles followed this path, the church might have remained a rock-solid, singular body, bound by love and mission rather than fractured by doctrine and control.
Instead, we are left with a scattered and disconnected body of believers, each denomination claiming truth while distancing itself from others. The sociological and psychological behaviors—Authoritarian Leadership, Social Closure, and In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics—embedded in the apostles’ actions continue to shape modern Christianity. From megachurches to cults, leaders often replicate Paul’s fear-driven control or Peter’s institutional tendencies, prioritizing power over unity.
Conclusion: A Call to Return
This story is not one of blame but of reflection. Paul, Peter, and others were human, navigating a fledgling movement in a hostile world. Yet their unrecognized reliance on control and exclusion set a trajectory we still follow. To heal the fractures, we must return to Yahshua’s given name and His given teachings: love, servanthood, and a kingdom open to all. By shedding hierarchies, embracing inclusivity, and rejecting fear-based control, we can rebuild the body Yahshua envisioned—one that stands rock-solid, not scattered.
Authorship and Publication
This narrative is the original work of Scott Prentice, to be published on ScottPrentice.com. For further exploration of Paul’s role in these dynamics, visit www.ProblemsWithPaul.com.
Notes on Length and Depth