Was James a hypocrite?

by TheListener 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    In Galatians 2 Paul talks about going to Jersualem and getting approval for his teaching that gentiles don't neet to follow the mosaic law. Especially circumcision. He received the hand of friendship and Titus didn't need to be circumcised (close one for poor 'ole Titus).

    But in Gal. 2:11-14 it appears that Peter went to Antioch, after the decision not to require circumcision and that it was ok to be a god-fearing baptized believing gentile and hung out with everyone. But, when some, from James, came to Antioch he separated himself due to fear of man and the power of the circumcision party.

    Did James agree to not make everyone get circumcised and then change his mind? I know some say that the meeting in Gal 2: 1-10 was the same meeting as Acts 15 but it doesn't appear so. The Gal. 2:1-10 meeting seems informal and Paul never mentions how he received a letter to read to everyone. It seems like Paul's nature to mention how he won the day (imho).

    Perhaps James agreed but didn't really like it or maybe he didn't think so many stinkin' gentiles would convert.

    In any case, it appears that they had to meet again in Jersualem for a formal session, wherein Peter supported Paul and they got formal written approval to not cut everyone who wanted to convert. Minus the blood stuff it wasn't a bad outcome.

    So was James a hypocrite or a jewish moasic patriot or is the timeline messed up?

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Did James agree to not make everyone get circumcised and then change his mind? I know some say that the meeting in Gal 2: 1-10 was the same meeting as Acts 15 but it doesn't appear so. The Gal. 2:1-10 meeting seems informal and Paul never mentions how he received a letter to read to everyone.

    TheListener,

    The meetings discussed in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10 were the same time but we learn in Gal that just before the matter was (supposedly) settled as described in Acts, Peter, James and John were still on the wrong side of this argument. Peter did not change his mind in Antioch after Paul confronted him and hightailed it back to Jerusalem for support.

    What really happened is that James fooled Paul as he was heavily dependent upon the contributions from Antioch and Paul for support. 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. So James seeing that he was loosing the argument taking place jumped in and offered to write the letter that would settle this matter for them all. But the letter was a fake. James did not want this discussion to go any farther. Paul would soon learn that it was intended only for Gentile converts and was never intended for the Christian Jews mixed in among them. When Paul returned to Jerusalem many years later to put a stop to the meddling still coming from this Jerusalem congregation James threatened Paul with this very same letter he wrote earlier telling him: Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. So now Paul, no longer under the protection of the Antioch congregation and their delegation was facing a fight for his very life. He was being forced to compromise his Faith, take Nazarite vows to prove he still believed in keeping the Law and they nearly had him killed anyway for his stand against the Law and circumcision. Paul’s effort to buy time and deflect their criticism did not work. It took the Roman army to save him. Why else would the book of Hebrews be needed as a result of this outrage by James? Why else would James write his letter that no longer supported Law and circumcision for salvation after all this? Paul finally won the argument.


    Joseph

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Still other possibilities:

    - Galatians offers a biased interpretation (in the Pauline sense of course) of James' agreement. Perhaps the latter meant little more than "let the Pauline mission deal as they please with Gentiles, as long as this is and remains a separate Gentile movement"; remember, the issue in Antioch sprung from the table communion between Jewish and Gentile believers, something James had probably never approved. (Of course Acts presents a different picture altogether.) This from the mainstream hypothesis that Galatians is really from Paul.

    - Now if Galatians is actually a later, post-Pauline document (from proto-Marcionites or Marcion himself), as a few radical scholars hold, then the picture of all characters (James, Cephas-Peter and Paul) may actually reflect later debates in addition to the conflict of James' times.

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    Joseph, I liked your post but I'm not sure I really understood it. The whole timeline has me confused. If I just read Galatians the second chapter I see that Paul met with the supposed leaders, including James, and got the okay to preach to the uncircumcised. Then, after that, Peter comes to Antioch lives it up with the gentiles and jews alike - until some from James come to town and Peter and Barnabas become intolerant. Paul then rips him a new one.

    It appears then that, yes, James was not being sincere when he said OK no circumcision.

    Narkissos, I found your response interesting. However, at this point in my fade if I'm to keep helping my family I have to assume (yes, I know I know) that the Bible was written when and by whom the WTS says. Other independent thinking can come at a later date.

    Any good books that discuss James and his writings?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    TL,

    A good mainstream study is that of John Painter, Just James.

    A more controversial one is Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. You can read a review of the latter here: http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    You have chosen 2 rather easy parts of the NT to lay out in a timelines. There is simply no honest way to harmonize the different versions of Paul's conversion and activity. Galations was either written as a Paulinist response to Acts or the reverse, Acts was written to integrate Paulinism into the growing Orthodoxy. Gal 1:18-20 and 2:7b,8 are later interpolations that made a half-hearted attempt to harmonize Gal with Acts. (a easy give away is that "Peter" is used rather than "Cephus" as in the rest of the work)

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    TheListener, The story is spread between Galatians and Acts so getting the timeline right is a bit difficult as it is not exactly in chronological order. Some details are added after the fact. Men from James went to Antioch and caused trouble. They taught circumcision as a requirement for salvation and expected Gentile believers to get circumcised and obey the Law. Peter was also influenced by them. Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Paul corrected Peter who was there as well for going along with them so Peter instead of correcting these men from James hightailed it to Jerusalem with them for support. Ga 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Now much later in Jerusalem and before the meeting before the entire congregation Paul took Peter, James and John aside and had a little one on one talk with them like this: Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Imagine, Paul now saying of James, Cephas, and John that they “seemed to be pillars” and “seemed to be somewhat” being unimpressed with their viewpoint. So Paul after this discussion thinking they were now on his side had the big meeting where James threw him a curve by writing the letter that derailed the discussion before it could really resolve the matter for them all as shown in my last post. Now this problem would fester and would not be resolved for at least 14 more years and this is visible in Paul’s many letters that included this struggle with such Jews. Hebrews had to be written which finally resolved it and if not written by Paul then at least authorized by Paul as this was his fight. No one else was helping other than the Antioch congregaton as such Jews were still keeping the Law for salvation. James finally gave in and wrote his letter to put an end to such Law keeping but one can hardly tell it was an apology and correcton unless they knew the background behind it. Not everything was sweet and rosy in the faith back then and battles raged for truth even among the apostles.

    Joseph

  • DavidChristopher
    DavidChristopher

    Are you sure that it was James, and not another James? I can speak in his defense though, that it is awfully hard sometimes not to be a hypocrite. I try like crazy, and I hate hypocrisy intensely, but I get called out all the time, (thankfully) and shown where I am being hypocritical. (And I am very thankful when people bring it to my attention.)

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan
    But, when some, from James, came to Antioch he separated himself due to fear of man and the power of the circumcision party.

    Did James agree to not make everyone get circumcised and then change his mind?

    That's really quite an extrapolation, to have even posed the question.

    1. These some, were they literalists, or did Peter mistakenly think they were ?

    2. These some, were they acting as James would have them act ?

    3. These some, had they even seen James recently ?

    4. etc.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Did James agree to not make everyone get circumcised and then change his mind? Paduan, James did not agree to do away with circumcision (and keeping the Law for salvation). He only left that impression at the meeting which satisfied Paul as least for the moment. This ended the discussion which did not actually resolve the matter as Paul thought. James only agreed to dispense with the practice among Gentile converts. It would not be until 14 years later that James would tell Paul in no uncertain terms that his letter was intended only for Gentiles not Jews like Paul. Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Not that Paul did not know this by now. He had to battle with them for years afterward and was now attempting to resolve the matter for Jews as well. James threatened Paul and never gave him that opportunity. The Christian Jews in Jerusalem even tried to kill him afterward. Peter came around, John who was also involved with James saw it all, finally changed his views so when he wrote he used love to soften the tone that such struggles caused. And James the one that nearly caused the death of Paul with his threats of bodily harm finally came around and wrote his letter to clarify the new position he now held among Jews. Joseph

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit