Hypocrisy

Words should be defined by their usage and not simply by their etymology, but I believe the word "hypocrisy" is not being used correctly today. People seem to be using the word "hypocrisy" to label those they disagree with as deceivers, which portrays them as being much worse than being inconsistent in what they believe or do.  "Hypocrisy" is not the same as being "inconsistent" in what one believes or does, for the former involves deception, while the latter does not necessarily involve deception, and the inconsistency may be merely the perception of another but not necessarily the case.

Random House Dictionary defines "hypocrisy as “a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.”  The Greek word “hupokrisis”--which is transliterated as "hypocrisy"--speaks of a stage actor or one who pretends.  The word represents deception not inconsistency.  It speaks of one seeking to appear before others what they know they really are not.  To call someone a hypocrite is to call them a deceiver.  Deception is worse than inconsistency, and hypocrisy as deception is to be discerned and rejected.

Maybe before calling a person a hypocrite, which involves deception, discern the difference between deception and inconsistency.  Most people are inconsistent about many things, but that doesn’t mean they are intentionally seeking to be deceptive.  It doesn’t make them a hypocrite.  

If you don’t like a person’s beliefs and practices, that doesn't qualify them as a hypocrite.  If their beliefs and practices are or seem inconsistent, that doesn't make them a hypocrite.

Examples in Scripture

Acts 5:1-5: Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit: they knew it was wrong, and they gave the impression that what they were doing was what others had done, see Acts 4:32-35.   They were not obligated to give all of what they sold, but they wanted others to believe they did.   It was hypocrisy.  

Even when Jesus called the great crowds hypocrites, it must be because  they claimed ignorance of the times (of accountability to God), but could not deny the evidence, Luke 12:54-56.  It’s like when one claims ignorance when they surely knew better.  They could not deny the signs of certain weather coming, yet, after the signs of John's ministry and the person, preaching, and miracles of Jesus, they couldn't discern the times?

Luke 12:1:  The leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy.   Hypocrisy referred to as leaven speaks of it permeating affect, as a little fermented dough affects the whole.

What was their hypocrisy? Matthew 23:27-28:  The Pharisees were called hypocrites because they made a show of being righteous but were not so much.

Peter and Barnabas were deceptive out of fear: Gal 2:11-13. Fear is a motivation for hypocrisy.  In that situation, the issue was legalism, and this legalism denied the truth of the gospel.  Peter and Barnabas should have taken a stand for the gospel and not feared the disapproval of these Jewish reps. Legalism, especially when it denies the truth of the gospel, can not be justified in order to not be an offence to others.  Jesus didn’t do it.

Inconsistency does happen, but hypocrisy goes to the point of being deceptive:  you know what you’re doing or claiming.  By this you will be disapproved and fail to be effective.