Was James a hypocrite?

by TheListener 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AuldSoul

  Listener,

  I would say the key is in Paul's expression in Galatians regarding he and Barnabas being given the "right hand of sharing together" on this occasion.

  Acts 15:25-26 — we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  This is when it happened, so the two passages correspond to the same event. But Paul says they were only told to "keep the poor in mind." Later, Paul instituted a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the eating of things sacrificed to idols, and that even if they knew they would not sin in the eating except for not considering the consciences of others, which agrees with Jesus' "apostate" statement that it not what a man eats that defiles him. And that wasn't even in a "life or death" setting.

  It is patently clear that Paul did not submit to the Pharisaical thinking, "no, not for an hour." He believed that the truth of the good news would be corrupted by doing so. That is what the argument in Acts was about, the former Pharisees and their followers were trying to "subvert [the] souls" of some by charging them to "keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5, 24)

  The entire book of Galatians is an active letter against the idea of submission to the Acts 15 "decision" or any other man-made rules and regs. In Galatians 5:1-21, we find Paul arguing against "cirumcision" which he is obviously using euphemistically to refer to the whole law. I don't think many JWs look at it the way you have started to look at it, Listener. Paul wrote, "A little leaven ferments the whole lump."

  What "leaven" was he referring to? (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:14, 15; Luke 12:1-7)

  It is an interesting side note that even after that Acts 15 meeting, Paul says the "men from James" compelled Peter to go separating himself. (Galatians 2:12) James said they didn't give any instructions, but Paul apparently still believed otherwise.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  TheListener

  Ok don't get angry or anything but I'm on this forum to make sure I "get" certain things. This just isn't clicking in my head yet. I'm opening my mind here to understand this stuff and it isn't easy. I never needed to know these things as a strong witness.

  So I offer more thoughts and questions:

  1. 3 years after his conversion Paul went to Jersualem for 15 days and stayed with Peter (gal. 1:18-20)(Acts 9:26-28). Met James the Lord's brother. There Paul must have learned much about the movement and Jesus himself. (it seems that according to Gal. 1:20 Paul is saying that he's not lying about not following the law).

  2. 14 years later Paul went again to Jerusalem (gal. 2:1-10)(Acts 11:29-30). He met privately with Peter, James the brother of the Lord and John and they gave Paul and Barnabas the hand of friendship. They agreed that Paul should preach to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised (I'm guess jews and proselytes - how does Cornelius the God-fearer fit in here?).

  3. Sometime after the second visit Peter (Cephas) came to Antioch and fit in just fine with the believing gentiles. But, when some from James arrived he backed off, along with Barnabas - hmmm interesting that Barnabas didn't even back ole Paulie.

  Question: I only see 2 trips to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians. Does Paul mention other trips in other books?

  Question: Acts seems to mention four trips. Perhaps one trip mentioned twice. Acts 9:26-28; Acts 11:29-30; Acts 12:25; and Acts 15

  Question: Was there a trip after Peter snubbed the gentiles? If so which one was it and why isn't it recorded in chronological order - ok maybe no answer to that last part.

  Question: It appears that James wrote his book around 62 (WTS date). That means he backed off sometime between the Acts 15 meeting and 62, right?

  Question: Hebrews was written between 61 and 67, at least sometime before the temple was destroyed. If that is so was it also written to bolster the Jews against feeling bad because now they had no law covenant and had to socialize with the dirty (figuratively) gentiles who loved Jesus like they did?

  Comment: Why is this so damn confusing.

  I can't be the only person who hasn't gotten this yet. Where's my first century christians for dummies book?
• 

  Narkissos

  Question: I only see 2 trips to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians. Does Paul mention other trips in other books?

  Yes, to bring the "collection" from the Gentiles as a "political" tribute to the Jerusalem "saints" (the deal being, if they accept money from the uncircumcised Gentiles they cannot reject koinônia, "communion," with them); 1 Corinthians 16:3f; 2 Corinthians 1:16; Romans 15:25ff. There is an anachronistic allusion to this in Acts 11:29f;

  Question: Was there a trip after Peter snubbed the gentiles? If so which one was it and why isn't it recorded in chronological order - ok maybe no answer to that last part.

  Acts 21.

  Question: It appears that James wrote his book around 62 (WTS date). That means he backed off sometime between the Acts 15 meeting and 62, right?

  I hold the epistle of James to be a later pseudepigraphical writing, building on some Judeo-Christian tradition and the memory of James as the chief opponent to Paul, yet springing from an anti-Pauline school within the Hellenistic church in the post-Pauline era. (OK TL I understand this is for "later" )

  Question: Hebrews was written between 61 and 67, at least sometime before the temple was destroyed. If that is so was it also written to bolster the Jews against feeling bad because now they had no law covenant and had to socialize with the dirty (figuratively) gentiles who loved Jesus like they did?

  I also think Hebrews is from a later, post-apostolic generation (cf. 2:3f), and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles plays strictly no rule in it (which is true for the epistle of James too).
• 

  AuldSoul

  I see you already considered what I sent in PM...

  I am interested in the results of your research, but I also think the point of Galatians is that "we must obey God as ruler, rather than men" who say they know what God wants us to do. (Acts 5:29-32; Galatians 5:1-24)

  What you are doing is great. Ephesians 5:15-17 was written to a well established congregation.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  JosephMalik

  TheListener, Paul’s very early visit did not result in the confrontations that would come later. Also Paul’s education was not primarily obtained from them. His information was obtained from Christ personally. As Paul stated: 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Now Paul was writing Galatians after the fact, after such problems surfaced and caused trouble in his territories. He could now look both forward and back in time in the midst of such events to explain why this letter to them was necessary. This is why the chronology is not sequential. Also his letter did not go as far as Acts 21 or cover every visit. It was only concerned with detail that covered the men causing such problems for him such as James, Peter and John. Thus in his introduction their position did not matter to Paul. He was as much an apostle and authority on Christian doctrine as any of them. Pow, he knocked them off their pedestal and leveled the playing field in no uncertain terms like this: Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The (Acts 11:29-30) visit was simply to deliver the distribution, was uneventful and is not discussed in Gal. It is the Acts 15 trip, the third visit that resulted in the meetings being discussed in Gal. The trips you see mentioned in Gal are the first and third. The fourth visit is the one documented in Acts 21. Remember that Luke was Paul’s right hand man. The book of Acts largely documented Paul’s place in the faith, his personal selection by Christ to be his apostle, his ministry, this struggle that Paul had with other apostles and James and Luke did all this for Paul’s sake. So to answer your question: Question: Was there a trip after Peter snubbed the gentiles? If so which one was it and why isn't it recorded in chronological order - ok maybe no answer to that last part. This is the Acts 15 trip. This is after the distribution mentioned in Acts 11 was well along, the reason James wanted to deflect the argument in a way that did not anger Gentile yet prevented Jews from being exempt from the Law. Hebrews would have been written after the Acts 21 visit failed to resolve the matter for the faith, a time under house arrest when Paul had the support, time and manpower needed to get such a book written. Joseph
• 

  TheListener

  I can't tell you how much everyone's replies mean to me. I'm really trying to learn the Bible.

  I've always read the scriptures in snippets. Yes, I knew Paul went to Jerusalem and had to discuss circumcision. I even know that the supposed governing body meeting in Acts 15 is probably 49ce. But, now that I'm truly trying to understand what Paul wrote en toto and why he wrote it to the people he did, and how they viewed it based on their personal circumstances I am finding some interesting questions. Once I get the timeline fixed in my head I can really delve into who was writing what to whom and when. I feel like I'm undertaking a serious Bible study course all on my own (with the exception of you great posters here). This is stuff you probably learn in a good religion curriculum.

  Oh well, I appreciate your tolerance of my thick-headedness.
• 

  TheListener

  Slowly the brain begins to clear and the machinery is heard whirring and clicking and gears begin to fall into place with a smooth yielding flow that only flesh and blood can achieve.

  OK I’ve read, re-read, re-re-read; written my own timeline, thrown my own timeline away, re-written my own timeline, searched the net for eons and I think, think I’m getting it

  -Barnabas introduces Paul to Peter and James in Jerusalem. Paul stays with Peter for 15 days.( Acts 9:26-28; Gal. 1:20)

  -Paul delivers relief money to the starving Jerusalem congregation(s). These relief money come from Antioch and perhaps even Corinthians, Galatians and Macedonians (the congregations involved depend upon Lukan or Pauline primacy – nice eh?) (Acts 11:29-30)

  -Paul’s first missionary tour

  -**Peter goes to Antioch and Paul lets him have it (Gal. 2:10) ((the jury is still out on the timing of this. I’ve searched and found several points of view from reputable scholars that place this pre and post Acts 15. Since there are good arguments for both sides I won't be staunch in my viewpoint, yet.)

  -Paul, Barnabas and Titus (Titus the complete J )(that’s a circumcision joke) go to Jerusalem and have a meeting. The outcome is that gentile converts do not need to follow the law except for idol food, blood and fornication. They give Paul and Barnabas the hand of friendship to go to the uncircumcised and Peter to go to the circumcised. (Acts 15 ; Gal. 2: 1-10)

  -Paul’s second missionary journey

  -Paul’s third missionary journey

  -Paul goes to Jerusalem (apparently against everyone and their brother’s advice). This time he meets with James and the older men. They say that Jews are complaining that Paul is preaching that Jewish Christians don’t have to follow the law (gasp!). Paul agrees to fulfill a nazirite vow and is arrested.

  -Hebrews written (which bolstered downhearted Jews and reaffirmed that they didn’t have to follow the law covenant to be saved but put faith in Jesus).

  -James written (apparently James finally changed his opinion on following the law, but still wanted to see some works).

  In answer to my initial question then, was James a hypocrite? The answer appears to be no. He wasn’t a hypocrite, but he wasn’t specific with Paul either. Paul felt everyone everywhere was the same Jew or Greek, man or woman, free or slave. None of those individuals in Paul’s opinion needed to be circumcised or follow the rest of the law. Including the injunction from Acts 15 about the idol meat. James agreed that gentile converts didn’t need to be circumcised in Acts 15 but that didn’t cover Jewish Christians. That is clear from Acts 21.

  I wonder about this though. Many Christians prophesied to Paul by means of the Holy Spirit that he shouldn’t go up to Jerusalem (his 4 th visit, Acts 21). Even in Caesarea Agabus came down and said don’t go or you’ll be bound. Agabus’ accuracy had been pretty good up to this point. But, Paul pressed on, seemingly unstoppable from his desire to visit Jerusalem this 4 th time. He had to submit to James and others request to show his subservience to the Law Covenant – this must have been really embarrassing and difficult for Paul, and then he was arrested to boot. Perhaps this was punishment for pushing the trip to Jerusalem after being told by the Holy Spirit not to go.
• 

  JosephMalik

  TheListener,

  You are doing very well. At least now you see that Christianity is not what many would like you to think. It was full of errors and false doctrine even then. Doctrinal wars were fought among the apostles and others with life threatening possibilities. Some were so bad that John called them antichrist and deceivers. Paul used words such as destruction and lawless to identify them. The Elder appointments made by Paul and those he authorized was aimed at such men to curb their influence and put a stop to such outrages. Now you can actually see the faithful and evil slave in action and why such a parable was needed. This has been going on ever since and it is up to each one of us as individuals to finally be found faithful when our Lord returns for the Judgment.

  Joseph