Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
(Jas. 3:17:) Is It a Response to Being the Victim of Paul s Hypocrisy?
The word hypocrite in Greek means an actor. It is someone who pretends to be something he is not. Jesus' harshest words were reserved for hypocrites. (Matt. 23:13, 14, 23-28.) The Pharisees wore an actor's mask. They appeared righteous when inwardly they were full of dead men's bones. (Matt. 23:38). Jesus used the tenn hypocrite just as we would. A hypocrite pretends to be something he is not.
James writes about hypocrisy in (Jas. 3:17)
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits,
without variance, without hypocrisy.
What was this supposed to address about Paul? By the time James wrote his epistle, he must have been fully aware that Paul did teach the Law was abrogated as to Jews. Paul says this clearly in Romans chapter 7 which James is apparently still reading. All James can see is the blatant hypocrisy that Paul previously committed against James in Acts 21:21 et seq. (For more on Paul's position on the Law, see the chapter entitled, "Did Paul Negate the Law's Further Applicability?" on page 73.)
Most of us are unaware but in (Acts 21:21) Paul misleads James that he, Paul, was teaching the Law still applied to Jews who found Christ. That is why the attack on hypocrisy in (Jas. 3:17) is a response to Paul.
What led to this attack on hypocrisy is that James in Acts 21:21 tells Paul the following about Jews coming to Christ:
They have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs [ethos). ASV
James tells Paul that Paul can prove he is not teaching such Jews coming to Christ to forsake Moses by Paul submitting to the Nazirite vow from (Num. 6). Paul does so. Paul is thus leading James to believe that James is indeed misinformed. Paul is letting James think Paul does not advocate the Law given Moses has been abrogated even as to Jews who would accept Christ. James clearly was seeking assurance from Paul to this effect in (Acts 21:21).
Yet, Paul in (Rom. 7:2) proudly says that by virtue of Jesus' death, under the Laws of remarriage, Jews are "loosed from the Law" (KJV) "released from the Law" (ALT) "discharged from the Law" (ASV) and "set free from the Law" (YLT). They are now free to re-marry another-a God who has no Law of Moses any longer for them. The key Greek word is katarge. Robertson's Word Pictures explains this means "to make void." Literally, Paul says the Law becomes of none effect for Jews any longer when Christ died. Paul uses the same expression in (Eph. 2:15) when he says the Law was "abolished." The word there is again katagsas -the aorist active participle in Greek of the same word in (Rom. 7:2). Paul's point is this principle of abolition applies to the Jews. This is why, based on Romans 7:2, some Paulunists teach Jews and Christians who follow the true Sabbath ( i.e ., sunset-to-sunset Friday to Saturday) are "guilty of spiritual adultery." The Law is so totally abolished as to Jews that a Jew (and a Christian) actually shows unfaithfulness to God by following the original command from God Himself! Oh my! What man cannot believe when he is at first deceived!
But what explains Paul letting James in Acts 21:23-26 believe erroneously that Paul taught the Law of Moses was still valid for Jewish Christians? Clearly James asks Paul to submit to the Nazirite vow to prove Paul does not in fact teach otherwise. Paul does submit to the vow. This action and Paul's silence thereby misleads James that Paul was living like a Jew not out of pretence but from a sincere belief that the Law had to be followed.
- "A11 Sabbatarians are guilty of adultery:...Paul said that [obeying the Ten Commandments] is equal to spiritual adultery, because in order to be joined to Christ, all the old Law must be abolished." http://www.bible.ca/7-10-commandments-abolished-Romans-7-l-7.htm (last accessed 2005).
How could Paul justify such behavior? Paul gives us the answer: he consciously practiced to make observers think he was observan t of the Law when he did not believe it was any longer valid. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul says he is "not under the Law" and in 1 Corinthians chapter 9 Paul repeats this. Paul then adds that when around Jews he acts like he is under the Law (Torah). When around Gentiles who are not under the Law (Torah), he acts like one who is under no law even though he is under the Law of Christ [i.e., back to Paul's "expedient" and "not be dominated" test of right and wrong in one's conscience]. Listen to Paul's open admission of such blatantly hypocritical tactics in (1Cor. 9:20-21):
(20) And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to
them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (21)
to them that are without law, as without law, not being without
law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that
are without law. (ASV)
One Pauline pastor himself defines "without hypocrisy" in (Jas. 3:17). He unwittingly gives us a clear understanding of the problem that James saw in Paul. This pastor says James means true wisdom, if from God, involves "no attempt to play a role or pretend to be what we are not." 43 Paul blatantly admits he does this. Paul did this with James clearly in Acts 21:21 et seq. Therefore, (Jas. 3:17) was saying Paul cannot be a prophet from God. Paul plays the hypocrite, and teaches others to do the same. The end justifies the means. James says such a person does not have true wisdom from God.