James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 14

How and why was James able to play such a preeminent role in the first century church? He was not part of Jesus’ roving band of disciples. He was not a witness to Christ’s miracles and did not sit under his teaching. Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry James was a critic and an unbeliever. (See John 7:1–5.) How then could this outsider rise to the role of church leader and adjudicator in matters of policy and doctrine?

Obviously, his post-resurrection encounter with Jesus was transformational in every way. James was changed. He was a new man—a born-again believer. Because of his intimate knowledge of Jesus, he un-doubtedly had a unique understanding—a fuller grasp—of the mind of Christ.

According to Christian tradition, James was a deeply devout individual, who was esteemed for his piety.

According to Hegesippus, writing ca. 180 (quoted by Euseb. Hist. II.23.4–18), James was a Nazirite and spent so much time on his knees in intercession for the people that his knees grew horny like a camel’s. He was revered by all as “the Just” (a title perhaps transferred from Christ; cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14). (1)

The veracity of this description is hard to determine, but often legendary accounts encapsulate a good deal of truth. It certainly is likely that James was a man of prayer and spiritual ardour, since his epistle reflects and encourages these very characteristics. He calls for holy and righteous conduct with no excuses.

These qualities would have been evident and admired by the twelve apostles. Furthermore, these character traits testify to the dramatic change that occurred in James. Sound moral character and a spirit attuned to God are prerequisites for leadership in the church, and it certainly appears that the James possessed these traits.

Paul’s high respect for James is noteworthy. In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul cites his relationship with James as a point of defense against the Judaizers, who insist that Gentile converts must be circumcised.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me. (Galatians 1:18–24)

The independent-minded Paul insisted that the gospel message as he understood it came directly by revelation from the Lord; nonetheless, he gained insight and affirmation through his early contact with Peter and James. He uses this affirmation to bolster his own authority as a bonafide minister of the gospel. It is apparent that Paul accords respect to James because he is “the Lord’s brother,” a recognized leader in the church, and also an apostle.

The importance of Paul’s first meeting with James should not be underestimated. Their spiritual journeys had much in common. Both came from devoutly religious backgrounds. Prior to conversion, both approached their faith from a rigid, legalistic mindset. As young men, both were hostile to Christ and the gospel message, and both had a personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus—a visitation from the Lord. It was an encounter that radically changed the trajectory of their lives.

Imagine for a moment the discussion they had in this first meeting, as each explored the other’s personal story. Their lives ran parallel to one another. Both needed a direct encounter—more like a confrontation with Jesus—in order to come to faith and change their ways. (2) Both were unique when compared with the other apostles, in that they needed this direct visitation to change their hostility into adoration. They were special because their calling and mission came via a direct and sudden intervention by Jesus. They were singled out
by him.

The significance of James’ designation as an apostle should not be overlooked. James, along with Paul and the Twelve, was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus. This included an impartation of apostolic authority to carry out their mission to the church and the world—an authority derived from their meeting with the Lord.

It is logical to conclude that in this first meeting James ‘got’ Paul. He understood where he was coming from, perhaps more than any other man. Similarly, Paul ‘got’ James. They shared a mutual and parallel experience that connected them as brothers in the Spirit. This mutual understanding was foundational to their relationship and would stand them in good stead over the years, as their apostolic ministry took them to divergent fields. They both understood that they were called by the Lord Jesus to fulfill a specific role or ministry. In Paul’s case it was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. (3)

The question is, did Jesus also give James a specific apostolic assignment when he appeared to him after his resurrection? Did he appoint James as the leader of the church in Jerusalem? Or was this a role that James grew into over time? Did the twelve apostles simply come to recognize the proven leadership qualities that James possessed? Some early Christian literature accords James a pre-eminent leadership role, as W. A. Beardslee explains:

The Clementine Homilies and Clementine Recognitions, which are romances about the life of Clement dating from the fourth century but partly based on Jewish Christian sources of an earlier time, call James “bishop of bishops.” In these writings Peter and the other apostles are accredited by James (Clementine Recognitions IV.35). James is presented as sending out the apostles in the Coptic Gnostic “Letter of James” of the Jung Codex.” (4)

There can be no doubt from New Testament sources that James became the recognized authority within in the Jerusalem church, but this was not immediately the case after the church’s first Pentecost. Unlike the apocryphal accounts cited above, it would appear that over time James assumed this role and was recognized for it, even as Paul grew into his role as the apostle to the Gentiles. Again, in this respect Paul and James share a similar story. Due to their initial opposition to the gospel, it took years for them to gain the trust of the church, even after their personal encounter with their resurrected Savior. If James had any role in sending out the apostles, it is not recorded in scripture, and it certainly did not happen prior to the ingathering initiated by the conversion of the centurion Cornelius in Acts 10.

Returning to the second chapter of Galatians, we see that Paul continues to use his affirmation by James and the apostles to bolster his authority in his argument against trusting in circumcision.

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders; I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 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 believers 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 be preserved for you.

As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas [Peter] and John, those esteemed as 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 circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. (Galatians 2:1–10)

Scholars are uncertain as to the time and date of this meeting in Jerusalem. Some view it as Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Council referenced by Luke in Acts 15. Others see this as a different meeting entirely. Sound arguments can be advanced for both positions. Regardless of the chronology of this meeting, it is obvious that Paul recognizes James, Peter, and John as “esteemed pillars” in the church. In addition, he sees himself as accountable to them for the integrity of the message he preaches to the Gentiles. By extension he considers their endorsement as lending credence to his message and his apostleship. Their acceptance of the uncir-cumcised Titus into fellowship buttresses his argument that adherence to the Mosaic Law was not required for Gentile believers.

Since James the brother of Jesus was not initially a leader within the church, how did he come to play such a significant role, as revealed in Acts 15? The Galatians passage above provides some evidence. Paul recognizes James, Cephas (Peter), and John as “esteemed pillars.” When did James enter into this esteemed position? The first chapter of Acts provides some tantalizing clues.

Mackenzie King Estate, Gatineau Park — photo by David Kitz

After Christ’s ascension, Peter initiated a meeting of the remaining eleven apostles to find a replacement for Judas the traitor. Peter reasoned from scripture that they should appoint someone in order to return to the original configuration of twelve apostles.

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’

“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:20–26)

This raises an interesting question. If Peter, with the agreement of the remaining eleven, felt it necessary to appoint a new apostle to replace the deceased Judas, did he or John initiate the same response following the death of James the son of Zebedee in Acts chapter 12?

As pointed out in Chapter 2, during his ministry Jesus always had an inner circle of three. The canon provides no definitive answer to this question of apostolic succession, but it is from this point on that James begins to play a prominent role in the Acts account. Did James, the brother of Jesus, simply replace James the son of Zebedee, who was the brother of the Apostle John? If past practice is any indication, then this may well be the case. Furthermore, Paul’s identification of James among the triumvirate of esteemed pillars in Galatians 2 lends credence to this view.

Despite a certain spiritual affinity between James and Paul, and the similarity in their conversion experiences, a tension exists between them. It is a tension that quite naturally arises from the constituency that they serve. James was the servant leader of the Jewish church; Paul saw him self as the servant leader of the Gentile church. Quite naturally there was a greater adherence to and appreciation of the Mosaic Law among Jewish believers in Christ. This was an integral part of their heritage. Their new-found faith in Jesus as Messiah did not mean they would give up all aspects of their Jewish faith. On the contrary, many may have gained a deeper appreciation for it. A misdirected zeal for the law would bring some of them into conflict with Gentile believers who had no such heritage.

From Paul’s perspective we can see some of this conflict:

When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For 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. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of 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 the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:11–16)

It is clear from this passage that a dichotomy of faith-based dietary practise separated Jewish and Gentile Christians and even seasoned veterans such as Peter and Barnabas had difficulty straddling this divide. How inclusive was Christian fellowship if Jewish and Gentile Christians could not dine together? Paul was justified in calling his apostolic colleagues to account. If all are justified by faith in Christ, then separation into distinct camps for mealtimes signalled a divided church.

One should not assume that the “certain men” who “came from James” were strict advocates of circumcision for Gentile believers. The text does not allow us to reach this conclusion. They simply may have decided to adhere to a set of dietary scruples that were the norm in a fully Jewish society. But by transferring these un-compromised scruples to a mixed setting of Jews and Gentiles, they fixed a gulf between the two parties. Whether that was their intend is not clear, but the division it signalled was unmistakable.

The bigger issue is the hypocrisy that was displayed by both Peter and Barnabas. Previously they had eaten with the Gentiles. Were they worried that these men from James would tattle on them? Would James dis-approve of them eating with Gentiles? Judging by his conciliatory stance at the Jerusalem Council it is doubt-ful that James would disapprove. In fact, much of his judgment in Acts 15 is aimed at making cross-cultural fellowship at mealtime possible.

In his commentary on this passage from Galatians, R.A. Cole makes this pertinent observation: “We give much thought to the problems of Paul, but few to those of James. This is scarcely equitable, especially in view of the vast range of opinion among Jewish Christendom.” (5)

As the leader of the Jerusalem church, James was tasked with maintaining unity in Jewish Christendom—a near impossible task. If, as legend has it, James spent much of his time on his knees in prayer, here would be the reason for his earnest petition. He had within his ranks many from the party of the Pharisees. (See Acts 15:5.) Though they believed in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, in all likelihood they also considered adherence to Mosaic Law as sacrosanct. Balancing this off with those of more liberated views was next to impossible. This became even more difficult when trying to find a degree of accommodation with an influx of Gentile believers.

It’s quite easy to understand why Paul and his Gentile followers would resist embracing circumcision and the stringent minutia of Mosaic Law. But when we reverse the position, is it logical to assume that because of their new-found liberty in Christ, Jewish believers should no longer circumcise their sons and begin eating pork? Modern Jewish converts to Christianity face the same dilemma. In their embrace of Christ, must they jettison all elements of their Jewish faith, or should they maintain some or all aspects of it? Through the ages the response to these questions has been varied. Undoubtedly, James attempted to maintain a spirit of Christian unity among those who responded differently to these questions.

R. A. Cole sees these “certain men” who “came from James” as representative of the more conservative or legalistic Jewish believers: “They were clearly his [James’] own ‘right wing’, the Pharisaic group, and a sore
embarrassment even to him.” (6)

For James to balance these divergent views and maintain Christian unity was a herculean task. In a world of ethnic, racial and religious divisions, Christian unity—unity in the Spirit—is a miracle no less significant than the feeding of the five thousand or the healing of the paralytic.

There are theologians who emphasize the differences between Paul and James. Paul emphasized grace and faith, while in his epistle the practical-minded James emphasized doing the commands of Christ. But like James, Paul ends many of his epistles with a to-do list for practical Christian living. (See Galatians 6:1–10, Ephesians 5:1–6:9, Philippians 4:4-9, Colossians 3:1–4:6, 1 Thessalonians 4:1–5:22.) And like Paul, James speaks of a spiritual rebirth through the word—a doctrine that is universal among New Testament authors. (See James 1:18.) In short, there is far more that unites these founding pillars of the faith than divides them. They are engaged in building something totally new—a grand cross-cultural experiment called the church.

Paul called this fusion of Gentiles and Jews into the church a mystery.

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 3:4–6)

Building and maintaining unity in Christ across a huge cultural and religious divide was an integral part of Paul’s mission. It should be remembered that in almost all cases Paul began his church planting mission to a community by preaching at the local Jewish synagogue. He continued there until the Jewish community rejected his message. Only then did he go directly to the Gentiles—but he always drew some Jewish converts to Christ with him. (7) The congregations that formed were a blend of Jewish and Gentile believers.

We need to keep in mind that James endorsed Paul’s ministry. According to Luke there was joy among the Jewish believers when they heard the news of Gentiles turning to the Lord. (See Acts 11:18, Acts 15:3–4, and Acts 21:19–20.) James surely joined in this rejoicing. In addition, at the Jerusalem Council he opened wide the door to the Gentile believers entering the church by placing very few restrictions on them. He did not require them to be circumcised.

According to Jewish tradition, there are 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Law of Moses, covering virtually every aspect of daily life. But in a single bold stroke, the Jerusalem Council at James’ direction set aside all of these but three. To take such a position, James must have been in full agreement with Paul’s assertion in Galatians 2:15-16.

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of 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 the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15–16)

Spiritual rebirth through faith in Christ was the crucial factor that made one a Christian, not circumcision or adherence to the Mosaic Law. James fully grasped this because he personally experienced it. Just like Paul, though he was circumcised and strictly observant of the Law, James initially did not believe in Christ. Saving faith was born in him on the day he encountered his resurrected brother.

Rather than being at loggerheads as some theologians would have us believe, Paul and James were full part-ners in the spread of the gospel. Rather than be appalled at the news that Gentile and Jewish Christians were eating together in Galatia, James would have rejoiced in their show of unity. After all, at the Jerusalem Council he established a set of rules to make such fellowship possible.

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, we see that James had within his ranks Jewish Christ followers who saw these matters differently. Some of them stirred up a great deal of trouble among the Gentile believers. But rather than see James and Paul as theological opponents, we should view them as bridge builders who worked to-gether to advance the gospel within their assigned field and across cultural and racial barriers. Today, in the context of a rising tide of Christian nationalism, there is an urgent need for ministers of the gospel to do the same.

Why did James come to play such a pivotal role in the early church? Perhaps the best answer may be because he was a conciliator and a bridge builder at a time when the church was rapidly expanding into new territory and across people groups. In other words, he was the right man at the right time for the job.

But in the final analysis, something more fundamental may have been the deciding factor in James’ rise to prominence. That factor is the Jewish understanding of inheritance. According to the Law of Moses, the bride of a deceased brother who has no male heir must be given to the next brother in line, so that he can father a child to continue his brother’s lineage.

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5–6)

Jesus’ departure from the earth meant that all his earthly possessions would legally pass to his next surviving brother. In this case, that would be James. Jesus had no substantial material inheritance. And he had no wife—or did he?

Throughout the New Testament the church is referred to as the bride of Christ. (See Ephesians 5:22–33, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelations 19:7, Revelations 21:2, Revelations 21:9.) If the church is Christ’s bride, then it logically follows that in his physical absence the responsibility for the care of the bride should fall to Christ’s brother.

As long as James was outside the household of faith as established by Jesus, he had no right to this inherited responsibility. But having been born again by the Spirit, James now had a dual claim to Christ’s bride, the church, by virtue of both natural and spiritual DNA. Furthermore, over time he had proven himself as a loyal follower and a developing leader within the church, as shown in the Book of Acts.

The early apostles were all well-versed in Jewish laws of succession. They may well have viewed James’ ascent to leadership as the right and lawful outcome. It prevented the leadership squabbling and jockeying for position evident while Christ was still present with them. It handily settled the question of leadership posed by the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee.

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. “What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:20–28)

Which of the twelve would lead? Peter, James, or John? Jesus side stepped the question. His Father would decide. And in the end Jesus’ Father bypassed all three. He settled on James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.112

(1) Beardslee, “James,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, p. 793.
(2) For Paul’s confrontation with the resurrected Jesus, see Acts 9:1–19. For James’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, see 1 Corinthians 15:3–8.
(3) “But the Lord said to him [Ananais], ‘Go, for he [Paul] is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.’” (Acts 9:15–16) See also Paul’s account of his conversion, Acts 26:15–18.
(4) Beardslee, “James,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, p. 793.
(5) R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians—Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1984), p. 75.
(6) Cole, Galatians, p. 75.
(7) For an example of Paul’s methodology in evangelizing a community, read Acts 13:13–52.
(8) Jesus validated the Jewish practice of fraternal succession in marriage in his discourse with the Sadducees. See Matthew 22:23–33.

New from David Kitz

James—the brother of Jesus—who was this man? What evidence do we have that this “brother of our Lord” even existed?

David Kitz digs deep into archeology, family dynamics, church history, and the biblical texts. What emerges from his research is a portrait of a decisive, pivotal leader who embodied the will and character of Jesus Christ.

But how did James—James the unbeliever—transform to become a leader who changed the course of world history? In these pages you will uncover the answer and rediscover for yourself the life-changing power of the gospel.

To view further details or purchase directly from the author click here.

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 13

As the leader of the church, James finds himself straddling the gulf between two factions: the Judaizers who insist that male Gentile coverts to Christianity be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law, and a faith-oriented faction led by Paul that believes in the sufficiency of grace, apart from adherence to the Law. The struggle between these opposing positions informs a considerable portion of New Testament scripture. Paul’s letter to the Galatians focuses almost exclusively on this topic, but this issue or doctrine forms an underlying theme throughout Paul’s writing.

At the Jerusalem Council, James comes down decisively on the side of grace and the expansion of the Christian faith into the Gentile world. His ruling clearly endorsed the position taken by Peter and Paul, and he even tempers his remarks by placing some rather minor restrictions on the Gentile converts. Some may view this as a concession to the hardliners in the Jewish faction.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead 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. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. (Acts 15:19–21)
James certainly does not abandon the law entirely. He is not saying, “Believe in Christ and then live as you please.” Neither do any of the apostles. In his letter to the Romans, Paul claims he is falsely accused of promoting this errant doctrine. (See Romans 6:1–3.) Instead, Paul says faith in Christ prompts conformity to the image Christ, who fulfilled the Law (Colossians 3:9–11). Spiritual rebirth initiates and instills life transformation. Believers are changed by their faith in Christ and drawn to obedience to him. Spiritual DNA expresses itself, even as natural DNA does. The child resembles his natural father. Even so, the character and conduct of the born-again believer should increasingly resemble his heavenly Father and his spiritual brother Jesus Christ.

Paul amplifies this thought in his letter to the Romans:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29)

The restrictions or regulations that James places on the Gentile believers appear to be relatively inconsequential, but they had implications for the daily lives of Gentile believers. It was common for meat sold in the Gentile markets to be offered first as an animal sacrifice to idols. This made the Christian consumer of this meat an unwilling participant in pagan idolatry. Clearly this would be offensive to the sensibilities of Jewish believers.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

How strictly these regulations were adhered to remains an open question. In the fourteenth chapter of his letter to the Romans Paul discusses this issue of food and abstaining from meat at some length. He also gives these instructions to the believers in Corinth:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:25–33)

Similarly, the entire eighth chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted to this topic. Clearly Paul saw James’ injunction against eating meat offered to idols as an issue of considerable importance, or he would not have addressed this topic in his epistles to the church.

Undoubtedly, the advice cited above was given in keeping with Paul’s understanding of James’ directive in Acts 15. Overall Paul’s concern is chiefly that believers keep their conscience pure. He does not see “food polluted by idols” as a clear black and white issue, but rather as a matter of the heart or the intent of the believer. Paul implies that food is sanctified if it is received with thanksgiving. In so doing, he is providing a practical interpretation of how believers can keep themselves spiritually pure while living in a pagan world.

The injunction against sexual immorality needs little explanation. The Greco-Roman world was awash in sexual immorality, much of it linked to various fertility cults. Abstinence from sexual immorality also involved a rejection of the shrine prostitutes—both male and female—and ritual orgies linked to the worship of these deities. Clearly there was a strong sense that these new Gentile believers must renounce these practices and forms of worship as they embrace a new lifestyle within the body of Christ.

James’ command to abstain “from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” stems directly from Levitical law, where God says:

I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.” (Leviticus 17:10–12)

This reference to the foreigner, as cited here, has direct relevance as the Jewish believers contemplate welcoming Gentiles into their fellowship. The fellowship meal has particular significance in Middle Eastern culture. For friendship and fellowship to be sealed, the sharing of a meal together was essential. If this overture to the Gentiles was to be significant and meaningful, then Jewish Christian believers and Gentile Christian believers should be able to sit together and eat a fellowship meal together.

But truly the focal point of their fellowship must be Christ—Christ whose redeeming sacrifice was sealed in blood—Christ Jesus who instituted the Eucharist to commemorate the shedding of his blood. By his blood, atonement was made for both Jews and Gentiles. Their fellowship meals included the celebration of the Eucharist. Evidence of this can be found in Paul’s instructions on communion. (See 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.)

Surely the following words had true resonance as James considered the unity of faith between Jews and Gentiles: “it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” His brother’s blood was shed to make that atonement possible. True communion centered around the sacrificial shedding of Jesus’ blood.

Photo by Kaboompics .com on Pexels.com

With James having ruled on this matter, the assembly decided to communicate its decision to those most directly affected—the Gentile churches. Their message also makes it clear that those who caused this doctrinal disturbance were not sent or authorized by the apostolic leadership.

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. (Acts 15:22–31)

James has decisively sided with Peter and Paul on this critical issue. The gospel of grace as opposed to Jewish legalism has triumphed. For the sake of unity, James has added some conditions onto his sweeping welcome of the Gentile believers. Despite this ruling, some Judaizers will persist in trying to force Gentile converts to be circumcised, but they will lack the authority of the church. A certain tension will remain between the proponents of grace and the proponents of legalism. It is a tension that remains in some form between legalistically-inclined and grace-centered believers to this day. Nevertheless, the message is clear: James has ruled in favor of grace.

By welcoming the Gentile believers into the church, James signaled that he fully grasps the significance of the born-again experience. He has come full circle. He has come fully around to his brother’s position, which he so vehemently opposed as a young man—when he gathered the family around him to take charge of Jesus because, by his reasoning, Jesus had gone mad (Mark 3:20–22).

On that occasion with his family waiting at the door, Jesus responded with these words:

“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 3:33–35)

According to Jesus’ reasoning the spiritual family—spiritual genetics—took precedence over the natural family. Though at the time James rejected his brother and his concept of spiritual rebirth, he now finds himself in full agreement with it. His conversion at the appearance of the risen Christ changed everything. (See 1 Corinthians 15:3–9.) What he rejected as heresy before his own rebirth, he now affirms as gospel truth. James now sees the family of believers as his true family—a family that includes even Gentiles.

On a personal level, James was now Jesus’ brother in the Spirit as well as in the flesh.

Furthermore, at the Jerusalem Council, James plays the role his brother would have him play. He institutes his brother’s will by ensuring that the gospel message was available to all throughout the world, regardless of race or gender. James recognizes that those seated before him, eager to hear the gospel message, are his brothers and sisters. He is acting as a doorkeeper to the kingdom of God. In that role, he is guaranteeing that the door is open to all. Anyone can come and enter through repentance and faith in the shed blood of his brother Jesus.

Without question this was a difficult decision to make. By welcoming the Gentiles, James may have sealed the fate of the Jewish church—the church he led. There was a point when it appeared as though Christianity might become the dominant belief system among the Jews. Then severe persecution hindered its advance. Now, with its doors open to the Gentiles, the legalistic members of the Jewish faith could quickly and easily dismiss the Christian faith as an aberrant heresy, unworthy of consideration. As a result, further church growth among the Jewish community was likely stymied.

Did James know that this would be the outcome of his decision to throw the doors open to Gentiles? He probably had some idea of how this would impede the growth of the church among the Jews in their homeland. He knew the ethos of his people. The hardline Pharisaic viewpoint was popular with many Jews, and a fierce, religiously motivated ethnic pride was even more widespread. Generations of religious indoctrination are not easily set aside. Jesus clashed with it; now James does as well.

Despite this, James chose his brother’s will—God’s will—not his own. Perhaps he caught a glimpse of the long view—a view that saw the swift rise to prominence of the church in the Greco-Roman world. Perhaps he simply recognized that this was God’s doing—a work of the Spirit—not simply the work of man. Whatever the reason, James played a pivotal role in promoting the advance of the gospel and in shaping world history for the next two thousand years. Without him Christianity may well have remained an obscure Jewish sect. He was the hinge—the doorkeeper—and he opened the gospel door to the sea of humanity.

But one question remains. How did James come to play such a prominent role in the early church?

New from David Kitz

James—the brother of Jesus—who was this man? What evidence do we have that this “brother of our Lord” even existed?

David Kitz digs deep into archeology, family dynamics, church history, and the biblical texts. What emerges from his research is a portrait of a decisive, pivotal leader who embodied the will and character of Jesus Christ.

But how did James—James the unbeliever—transform to become a leader who changed the course of world history? In these pages you will uncover the answer and rediscover for yourself the life-changing power of the gospel.

To view further details or purchase directly from the author click here.