"Now the Bereans were of more noble character
than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great
eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what
Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
To be a Berean one has to be open to scrutinizing even the
writers of the Bible. the Bereans were commended for doing so
with regards to the Apostle Paul, seeing if based upon scripture
Paul was speaking the truth. Thus I do so with regards to James,
who isn't even an apostle, and was not chosen by Jesus Christ to
standardize doctrine.
And just as the Bereans didn't presume that Paul's words were
scripture, I, as a Berean, don't presume the words of James to
be scripture either. Nor, like the Bereans, do I presume
popularity to be the measure of scriptural validity.
As for the "how dare you scrutinize James" philosophy,
Paul writes of James among others in leadership at the church at
Jerusalem "But from those who seemed to
be something——whatever they were, it makes no
difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man"
Gal 2:6 Furthermore James himself says, "let not many of you become teachers, knowing
that we shall receive a stricter judgment." James
3:1, and so James being a teacher should be subject to
greater scrutiny. (Or is James saying we should impose this rule
on others, but not on him?)
Luther's
Astute Observation
I would start this introduction just as Martin Luther starting his
introduction to this epistle saying, "this
epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients"Martin Luther and "I do not
regard it as the writing of an apostle, and
my reasons follow.In the first
placeitis
flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture
in ascribing justification to works2:24).
It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he
offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St.
Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified
apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had
offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6.
Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss
giving a correct explanation of justification here
ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does
refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of
Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain
in Romans 4) to Abraham's works.This
fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any
apostle."
Martin Luther
This particularly becomes an issue in the second part of chapter 2
where James' ACTUAL statements are in contradiction to Paul's
writings, particularly Romans 4. In both cases they apply Gen
15:6 to their argument which says,
"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness." In Romans 4 Paul uses this verse as proof
that justification is by faith alone apart from works,
interpreting the Gen 15:6 as being fulfilled right then in Gen
15:6 prior to Abraham doing any works. Whereas James views Gen
15:6 as a prediction, a prophecy not being fulfilled until Gen
22, when Abraham did a work of faith. For to James,
justification is not attained until one has both faith and works.
Note how James phrases James 2:23
And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
Every time in the Bible when this kind of phrase is used it's
ALWAYS referring to the scripture as being a prophecy, a
prediction of a future event.
Thus James views Abraham as either not believing God
in Gen 15, or believing God, but not being reckoned righteous
until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith but no works,
of which James refers to as dead faith and not able to save. Thus
James views Abraham as not saved until Gen 22 when he offered
Isaac as a work.
If James interpretation is correct concerning Gen 15:6, then Paul
can't use it to prove his point in Romans 4. Conversely if Paul's
interpretation of Gen 15:6 is correct and thus Abraham was
justified by faith alone apart from works, then James is wrong.
And thus Luther said and I agree concerning James, "itis
flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture
in ascribing justification to works"
In fact why would James bring up Gen 15:6 to begin with? It
doesn't lend support to his argument. Unlike Paul he's not using
it as "proof" validating his point, rather he's simply imposing an
interpretation of Gen 15:6 which is explicitly and intentionally
contrary to Paul's gospel.
Furthermore consider the phrasing James chose in direct
contradiction to Paul:
Paul in Romans 4:2-6
"if Abraham was justified by works, he
has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does
the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are
not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work
but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the
blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart
from works"
James 2:20,21
"But do you want to know, O foolish man,
that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father
justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" James 2:24
"You see then that a man is justified by
works, and not by faith only."
And regarding the law, while Paul says in Gal 3:10 "All who rely on observing the law are under a
curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not
continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'"
and being under the law he refers to as bondage. yet James again
contradicts Paul by saying, "speak and so do
as those who will be judged by the law of liberty." James
2:12. And yes he is talking about the law of Moses as he
quotes Deut and Exodus referencing the Law of Moses.
It appears on all these points that James is writing to
intentionally oppose Paul.
Gloss
Readings of James
Typically Catholics interpret Paul in light of James. James is the
underpinning of the soteriology of Catholic and anti-OSAS
non-Catholic Christians who view salvation as contingent not upon
faith apart from works, but upon FAITH + WORKS.
In fact James was included in the Bible because of Catholicism,
though rejected as scripture by the earlier Christians. It was
included as the foundation of their soteriology. Go and argue
Paul's points concerning the gospel and the Catholic will
typically defend Catholicism with the book of James. It's the
leaven of the Bible.
Though Martin Luther is credited as the forefather the
Reformation, yet his views concerning James have largely been
ignored. Yet he makes valid points. Consequently non-Catholic
Christians misread James in such a way to make him agree with
Paul.
To elaborate see my page on A View of
Church History to view the particulars of gloss readings of
James.
Other
Evidence from the Epistle of James
Is the Curse of the Law Freedom?
James 2:10-13 "For whoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty
of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said,
"Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do
murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak
and so do as those who will be judged by the law of
liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has
shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
James advocates the idea that we will be judged by the law, and
that such law brings freedom (that is, if you follow it perfectly)
In contrast Paul views the law as a curse. "For
as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for
it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all
things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But
that no one is justified by the law in the sight of
God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law
is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal
3:10-13
According to James justification is by works, and yes, the works
of the law, and that in opposition to Paul.
James' Hypocrisy and Prejudice
James 2:1 "My brethren, do not hold
the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with
partiality."
He goes on to speak of not treating the rich with partiality over
the poor. But if you were to replace "rich" with "Jew" and
"poor" with Gentile, James is guilty of that very thing.
But let's consider even in his epistle, does James treat the rich
impartially? No.
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your
miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted,
and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are
corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and
will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in
the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your
fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of
the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You
have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have
fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have
condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you."
James 5:1-6
He categorically condemns the rich. While he commands "Do not grumble against one another, brethren,
lest you be condemned." James 5:9, yet he
grumbles against the rich. In James 4:12 he asks
rhetorically "Who are you to judge another?"
Well who are you James to judge another? Who do you think
you are? He says, "Do not speak evil of one
another" James 4:11 Yet
he speaks evil of the rich.
James is partial to the poor, and how conveniently being one of
them. And this is how James responds to the generosity shown him
by rich Gentile Christians whom he would never have welcomed into
his church without them first getting circumcised (see Gal 2:3)
who had sent donations to the poor saints in Jerusalem.
Where do you suppose Cornelius - a Gentile convert who was
generous to the Jews - went to church? Certainly not in James'
church. He would have never been welcomed there despite being
converted by Peter himself.
James shows himself partial, ungrateful, proud and demeaning
towards Gentile Christians, of whom he imposes his own personal
cherry picked regulations upon while washing his hands of them
with regards to ministry. (See Gal 2 an Acts 15)
The Most Important Thing
What is the most important thing to James? "But
above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by
earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes," be "Yes," and
your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment." James
5:12 The most important thing to James is to not swear an
oath. Compare that with Paul. Col 3:14 But above all these things put on love, which
is the bond of perfection.
James obsesses about the external - words, works. But Paul
emphasizes attitude. James obsesses over condemnation and
judgement. "Do not grumble against one
another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9 While
Paul emphasizes attitude, grace, hope, love, one's security in
Christ.
The
Spirit and the Body
James' backwards theology is further illustrated in his saying, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so
faith without works is dead also." James 2:26
Here James associates the body with one's faith, and the spirit
with one's works. That's backwards. A person's faith is internal.
One's works, like one's body is an expression of that which is
internal. And faith should be associated with one's spirit in this
analogy, and works with one's body. And seeing as the spiritual
man is alive even though his body may be dead, yes you can say
that a man is justified by faith apart from works, just as Paul
declared Abraham justified (alive to God) in Gen 15:6, whereas
James considered him dead until Gen 22. Paul says, "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because
of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
Rom 8:10 The body is dead in that one's works (the body) are
not taken into account with regards to one's justification, unlike
the gospel of James. So while James could have said "For as
the body without the spirit is dead, so works without faith is
dead" or "For as the spirit can be alive apart from the
body (2Cor 5:6), so also one's faith may be a living faith
without works", but he couldn't say what he did say.
Paul
James
Body
Works
Faith
Spirit
Faith
Works
The
History of James
The
Corruption in the Jerusalem Church
There a legalistic cult had arisen whose spread to the Gentile
churches caught the attention of the apostle Paul who
subsequently, along with Barnabus and Titus, went to the church at
Jerusalem to deal with it. That is "Some
men came down from Judea to Antioch
and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised,
according
to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' This
brought Paul
and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul
and Barnabas
were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to
Jerusalem
to see the apostles and elders about this question." Acts
15:1,2
That church was led by the other apostles and James, the Lord's
brother - not the apostle James. The apostle James had already
been martyred.
Luke records at that meeting, "some of the
believerswho belonged to the party of the
Pharisees
stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and
required to obey
the law of Moses.'" These "believers" were among the
leadership of that church for Paul says, "I
went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel
that I
preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who
seemed
to be leaders" Gal 2:2
I put "believers" in quotes for Paul says of them, "Yet not even Titus, who was with
me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
This matter
arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our
ranks to spy on the
freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did
not give
in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might
remain with
you." Gal 2:3-5 Thus
these were "believers" in name only, yet among the leadership at
the church there.
Indeed false believers among church leadership dominated the
history of post-Biblical Christianity.
While these people failed to influence Paul, as he says, "As for those who seemed to be important—
whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge
by external appearance— those men added nothing to my message."
Gal 2:6 Yet I would argue they did ultimately have an
influence on the message.
Peter argued in favor of Paul saying,
"Why do you (Jews) try to test God by putting on the necks of
the (Gentile) disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers
have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the
grace of our Lord Jesus that we (Jewish Christians) are saved,
just as they Gentile Christians) are." Acts 15:10,11
Then James, who is not an apostle of Jesus Christ, spoke up as if
he were the ultimate authority both over Jews and Gentile
Christians and imposed regulations on them, merely toning down the
regulations the circumcision would impose, rather then eliminating
legalistic regulations altogether. For while saying, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should
not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."
(Acts 15:19) in response to Peter's work characterizing the
whole of the Law as a yoke that could not be born, he took Peter
to mean that one could simply tone down the Law to regulations
which he thought would not be difficult, those regulations being, "we should write to them, telling them to
abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,
from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Acts 15:20
Consider
James' command forbidding Christians to eat the meat of
strangled animals as a condition for salvation. Paul says,
"The Spirit clearly says that in later
times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits
and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through
hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with
a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them
to abstain from certain foods, which God created
to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who
know the truth." 1Tim 4:1-3 Paul is classifying
James' decree as a doctrine of demons. He's speaking of James
being a hypocritical liar whose conscience is seared.
It appears that James did
not understand the gospel. He didn't understand Peter's point
about believing in God's grace. He didn't seem to understand
Paul's point that salvation is by faith apart from the works of
the law. Who does James think he was to add his own cherry picked
regulations to the gospel? He wasn't even an apostle. Or was it
that James was aligned with this heresy himself? Yes he made
concessions in light of the present opposition he faced. But he
made the kingdom of God out to be a matter of eating and drinking,
in accordance with Jewish customs.
How is it that this heresy of the circumcision was not only
present in that church, but even found among its leadership,
despite the fact that apostles of the caliber of Peter and John
were there? How could that have happened? I would speculate, Fear!
Namely fear of James and his cronies.
It's interesting to note as Paul does in Gal 2:11,12 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to
his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain
men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But
when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself
from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who
belonged to the circumcision group."
Note first that Paul seems to associate these certain men "from
James" with the circumcision group - which is that heretical sect.
Why mention "from James"? I take it that Paul wanted people to
associate James with that sect of which Peter was afraid. Some
further evidence of which may be inferred from the letter of James
which I'll mention later. Though I don't understand what Peter was
afraid of, but I take it that it was fear of the circumcision sect
and fear of their leader James which allowed this heresy to
propagate.
In confronting Peter on the matter Paul argues, "know that a man is not justified by observing
the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our
faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in
Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the
law no one will be justified." Gal 2:16 No
mention of the regulations which James imposed upon the gospel.
However if this perspective is the case, then Paul is being the
hypocrite himself here. For why did he not object to James'
imposition of regulations upon the gospel? Indeed was Paul afraid
of James? Granted that Paul ignored James regulations in his own
preaching. And in fact preached against them. For example he said,
"the kingdom of God is not a matter of
eating and drinking" Rom 14:17 and "Eat anything sold in the meat market without
raising questions of conscience" 1Cor 10:25 To
the Colossians he writes, "Since you died
with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as
though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do
not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined
to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and
teachings." Col 2:20-22 Why didn't Paul use this
same statement in responding to James' proposition to impose such
regulations on the Gentiles?
While some of the regulations James imposed had to do with
conditions of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians,
it's difficult to read that passage in Acts in that way. It seems
to me that at the time Paul gave in to James' legalism. Much as
Paul said, "those men added nothing to my
message." he failed to confront James personally as he
did Peter with regards to this very issue. Why rebuke Peter
publicly to his face concerning something Peter was simply
implying by his actions while not even giving a rebuttal to James
who was explicitly adding regulations to the gospel as
requirements for salvation? Why get upset with Peter and not with
James?
Perhaps Paul was afraid of James at the time, and regretting that
fact became really angry with himself for doing so as might be
reflected in his tone in Galatians and towards Peter.
The
Letter of the Jerusalem Church
It is disconcerting that this marginalizing of the gospel imposed
by James was propagated among the Gentile churches through a
letter saying:
"Since we have heard that some who went out
from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls,
saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" ——to
whom we gave no such commandment—— it seemed good to us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas
and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of
mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and
to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to
idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual
immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell." Acts 15:24-29
Notice in the rhetoric James is using, "We" is not referring to
Paul or Barnabas. Both from verse 23 and verse 24 which speaks of
"some who went out from us". Who is "us"? It's the Jerusalem
church. I would imagine much as Paul reluctantly tolerated
traveling with this letter with its messengers to the Gentile
churches to establish the fact that the circumcision sect was
unauthorized, it appears from his writings that he did not
personally endorse the contents of this letter. He didn't even
mention the letter in this epistle to the Galatians. I would
imagine it particularly disturbed him personally this phrase James
included where I believe James falsely invoked the endorsement of
the Holy Spirit to give the letter some weight.
Whatever Paul's reasons, I believe neither this letter nor
Paul's compromising of his gospel by endorsing it by implication
was of the Holy Spirit. Church history would likely have
been better off if he got in James' face right there at the
meeting, just as he had done with Peter later on, even if it meant
a church split - even splitting with the other apostles.
I think if Paul had stood up to James, then Peter and John
would have seen his boldness and be convicted of the Holy Spirit
and side with Paul, and consequently Catholicism, which is
simply a derivation of the circumcision sect, would not have had
a legalistic leg to stand on.
Though Paul never admitted this publicly, it may reflect his
rhetoric and vehemence against the circumcision sect, like in
Galatians 1 "I am astonished that you are
so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of
Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no
gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into
confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally
condemned!" Gal 1:6-8
Perhaps Paul should have told James that if he insisted on adding
his "necessary" regulations to the gospel then he can go to hell.
Maybe Paul was calculating as if a politician that his ministry
was someone contingent upon the endorsement of the Jerusalem
church. Yet in Galatians 2 he denies this. Is he speaking
hypocritically? Doesn't he even realize what he was doing? I would
imagine that Peter didn't realize what he was doing when he
stopped eating with the Gentile Christians of which Paul called
him to account in Galatians 2. So Paul himself proves that an
apostle of Jesus Christ can make mistakes, in the case of Peter.
But did Paul himself make a mistake in caving into James to this
extent?
Concerning the doctrine of the circumcision Paul says, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump."
Gal 5:9 of which Jesus says, "Beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Luke
12:1Yet it seems Paul's own hypocrisy along with that
of the other apostles in allowing the gospel to be marginalized
by James resulted in the whole church being corrupted for
thousands of years.
The
Prejudice of the Jerusalem Church
The apostles in Jerusalem, even while having the Holy Spirit, were
characteristically prejudice against Gentiles.
Consider Acts 6
Acts 6:1
Now in those days, when the number of the
disciples was multiplying,
a complaint arose from the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews
because their widows were neglected in the daily
service.
Why were these widows neglected? Because they had been married to
Gentiles. This demonstrates prejudice among the congregation. The
apostles response also showed prejudice as they said, "It is
not appropriate for us to forsake the word of God and serve
tables. " Yet Jesus had taught them
When He had washed their feet, taken His
garments, and sat down again, He said to them, "Do you know what
I have done to you? "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say
well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed
your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.For I have
given you an example, that you should do as I have done to
you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not
greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he
who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you
do them."
John 13:12-17
They didn't follow Jesus' example. Their excuse was that they
couldn't do both the ministry of the word and "wait on tables",
the phase being clearly derogatory, indicating their contempt for
such lowly labor. Yet they chose Stephen to do this, a man who
both ministered in the word (as is demonstrated in Acts 7) and who
"waited on tables". I believe they were blinded by their own
prejudice against Gentiles resulting in their hypocrisy.
Jesus had to give Peter a special vision just to get him to share
the gospel with Cornelius, a Gentile. Yet clearly, after being
saved, it hadn't occurred to Peter to invite him to the Jerusalem
church! Why? Obviously prejudice in light of the criticism Peter
received for visiting a Gentile.
Along with the other apostles there, James also plays the
hypocrite in this regard. For he writes, "My
brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into
your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there
should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay
attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him,
"You sit here in a good place," and say to the poor man, "You
stand there," or, "Sit here at my footstool," have you not shown
partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil
thoughts?" James 2:1-4 Yet
James appears to hold the faith with partiality, making a
distinction between Jews and Gentiles and imposing Jewish
regulations upon Gentiles. Nor was he inviting Gentiles into his
church. I would ask James, what if you replace the rich man with
the word "Jew" and the poor with "Gentile", how do you measure up?
Do you not make yourself out to be a judge with evil thoughts?
Indeed he did play the judge over the Gentiles, imposing upon them
his cherry picked regulations.
And as for judging James, didn't James himself write, "Let not many of you be
teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier
judgment." James
3:1 And isn't James a teacher? And wasn't
it written that the Bereans were honorable in scrutinizing Paul? (Acts
17:11)
The hostility in the Jerusalem church was an example of the church
being conformed to the world around them. For the culture was
hostile to Gentiles. When Paul came to Jerusalem it is written "And they listened to him until this word, and
then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow
from the earth, for he is not fit to live!" What was the
word? The word was "Gentiles" (Acts 22:21,22)
Yet all during this time Peter and John were in the church there.
Why were they not persecuted as Paul? Because they consciously or
otherwise endorsed this kind of prejudice against Gentiles.Their
fear of James and his cronies was likely fear of persecution for
endorsing a gospel that declared that Gentiles don't have to
become Jews to become Christians.
The
Usurpers of the Jerusalem Church
Another thing to take into consideration
concerning that meeting in Jerusalem as Paul noted in
Galatians 2 is this:
"James, Peter and
John, those reputed to be
pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship when they recognized
the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to
the Gentiles, and
they to the Jews."
Gal 2:9
First of who were they to make such a decision? Jesus
Christ told the apostles, "you will
be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and
Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts
1:8 and "go and make
disciples of all nations". The word "nations" is
"ethos" translated "Gentiles" over half the time (93
times) in the AV. And "Go into all
the world and preach the good news to all creation."
Mr 16:15
So first of all the decommissioning of Peter and John as
apostles to the Gentiles, to limit their ministry to the
Jews, was unauthorized. They did not have the right to
make such a decision and override Jesus' command. Nor did
they have the right to decommission Paul as an apostle to
the Jews to restrict his ministry exclusively to the
Gentiles. Jesus' commission to Paul was, "This man is my chosen instrument to
carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and
before the people of Israel." Acts 9:15
And again much as Paul did not object to this presumptuous
decommissioning, he did ignore it. Note for example Acts
18:5 "Paul devoted himself
exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that
Jesus was the Christ."
(In your face James!)
The apostles in Jerusalem had played with usurpation before when
they replaced Judas. In Acts 1, though Jesus told them to wait for
the Holy Spirit, they didn't to wait to make an administrative
decision, of which there shouldn't have been any urgency nor was
it their decision to make. An apostle was one whom Jesus Christ
chose personally. Instead the apostles chose men for themselves
and then allowed the Lord one out of two choices. I think the Lord
was rather insulted by this. Much as they were presumptuous about
Judas's replacement, the Lord chose Paul instead, a man whom the
apostles would never have chosen. (Using Paul as he did was kind
of Jesus' way of saying to them, "in your face!")
Who
is James?
There
are those who would claim that James was one of the Twelve
apostles. Doubtful. There were two apostles named James.
One was James the brother of John who was killed in Acts
12. That's not this James. Then there was James the
apostle, the son of Alphaeus, referred to as
James the Less, likely to distinguish him from the
other apostle James. Obviously not James the brother of
Jesus son of Joseph. Furthermore the mother of James the
Less, though called "Mary" was not Mary mother of Jesus. (Mr
15:40) Jesus had neither father nor mother in common
with James the Less. Thus the apostle James (that is,
James the Less) was not the brother of Jesus. Furthermore
if James the Less was the brother of Jesus, why was he not
referred to as James the brother of Jesus? Those who
equate the two have no explanation as to the alleged
change in title.
Consider Acts 1:13,14 When
they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they
were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and
Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James
son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas
son of James. They all joined together constantly in
prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of
Jesus, and with his brothers.
Notice that James son of Alphaeus, otherwise known as
James the Less, whom some propose is James the brother if
Jesus, is shown by these verses to be distinct from the
brothers of Jesus.
Consider also John 7:5 "Even his own brothers did not believe in him." That
should pretty much put to bed the issue. In John 7, his "brothers"
didn't believe in him. Yet James the Less did. Thus James the Less
was not a "brother" of Jesus.
As for some who allege "brother" means "cousin", makes no
difference in the above arguments. But in fact James, the brother
of Jesus, was Jesus' biological half-brother. Notice: Mark 6:3 "Is this not the
carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother
of James, Joses, Judas, and
Simon? And are not His sisters here
with us?" And they were offended at Him. Both in the
Old and New Testament whenever "brother" is used in the context of
talking about earthly brothers (as opposed to "brothers in the
faith"), and referenced to a mother, it always refers to
biological brothers and not simply a kinsman. Furthermore in New
Testament Greek there is a distinct word for "relative" or
"cousin" used many time, but different than that for "brother"
used in the above cases. If they meant to say "relative" or
"cousin" why is it not translated that way? Because translators
know that such a translation would be invalid.
But there are
those who claim that Galatians 1:19 proves James is an
apostle which says, "But I saw none of the
other apostles except <1508>James, the Lord’s brother." However
the Greek word <1508> and phrasing is also used in Mt
24:36 "But of that day and hour
no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, except <1508>
My Father only." To claim that Gal 1:19 proves James is
an apostle is to say that Mt 24:36 proves that the Father is an
angel, which is foolish. Essentially what Gal 1:19 means
is "I saw none of the other apostle, but I did see James the
Lord's brother", which does not affirm James as an apostle. Now since James,
the brother of Jesus, was not an apostle, who
does James thinks he is? I asked this in a Bible study
group and one responded, "He was the Lord's brother".
That's the thing! Nepotism! In the world it is
presumed that simply being a family member makes one
subject to special favoritism. But that is not the case in
the kingdom of God. At one point Jesus' family, including his mother reckoned him
crazy and on that basis tried to take him away from his ministry.
"Then Jesus entered a house, and again a
crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able
to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to
take charge of him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" Mark
3:20,21 Then if we continue on to verse 31 when they
actually arrived it says: Then
Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they
sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and
they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for
you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and
said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s
will is my brother and sister and mother." Mark
3:31-35
Jesus showed no favoritism to his family. Even with
regards to Mary he often criticized and
treated like everyone else. "One of the women in the crowd raised
her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that
bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He
said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the
word of God and observe it."
Luke 11:27,28
Catholic
Nepotism
The concept of Nepotism is the reason why Mary is viewed
as being the "Queen of Heaven" in Catholicism. I think
it's the reason why James was treated as if the head of
the Church, who could arbitrarily impose regulations upon
it. Interesting fact Eusebius, the Christian historian
writing in the early 4th century, notes that the Roman
Emperor Domitian presumed the Church to be a monarchy, and
wanting to rid the empire of it located the descendants of
the Lord's family, namely descendants of Jude, who along
with James, were two of the half brothers of Jesus.
Eusebius says, "Treating them with contempt, seeing
them as simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and
by a decree ordered the persecution to cease." But
what is of particular note is what Eusebius writes next,"Thus delivered, they ruled the churches,
both as witnesses and relatives of the Lord."
They ruled simply because they were relatives. That's
nepotism. Catholicism started off as a monarchy
ruled by Jesus' relatives. It is not what Jesus endorsed.
Just as James arbitrarily added man made regulations to
the Church, so also the Catholic Church. They corrupted
the gospel consequently leading to "church" filled with
false brethren, both in leadership an among the assembly.
James started it. Paul failed to sufficiently stand
against it. The result being thousands of years of the
gospel largely being lost and marginalized. The "rulers"
not being allowed to be scrutinized on any basis but one's
pedigree.
Nepotism led to Cronyism. And again Bereans were
disallowed from scrutinizing leadership, simply due to
"office" and church politics. Church leaders became
insulated from scrutiny until the Reformation. Yet
Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity stand and continue
today as illustrations of the errors of James and the sect
of the circumcision.
The epistle of James was included in the Bible by Catholics for
support of their false gospel.