James—More than an Epistle of Straw

05 Sunday Jul 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

Tags

Bible, Bonhoeffer, Christ, Christianity, church, epistle, epistle of James, faith, good works, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, Judaism, leadership, Martin Luther, Messiah, Paul, Peter, Reformation, Roman Catholic, Scripture, Soren Kierkegaard

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 18

There is something quite unique about the Epistle of James. It does not easily fit into the pattern of the other apostolic writings. There is a sharpness—a directness—that many readers find both challenging and refreshing.

In his writing James goes for the jugular with the relentless precision of an attack dog. And what is he attacking? He is attacking the hypocrisy, lethargy, and complacency that can so easily set into a believer’s life.

When the epistle is read in its entirety, the reader may come away with a keen desire to repent. It is an epistle that demands change—that requires action—that convicts the wayward.

If you are looking for comfort, you won’t find it in the Epistle of James. If you are looking for a philosophical discussion on the merits of the gospel or a treatise on various doctrinal points, you won’t find that either. What you do find is an unequivocal call for right living. For practical-minded James, wisdom is not an intellectual exercise. Wis-dom must be expressed through right words and actions.

Are any of you wise or sensible? Then show it by living right and by being humble and wise in everything you do. But if your heart is full of bitter jealousy and selfishness, don’t brag or lie to cover up the truth. That kind of wisdom doesn’t come from above. It is earthly and selfish and comes from the devil himself. Whenever people are jealous or selfish, they cause trouble and do all sorts of cruel things. But the wisdom that comes from above leads us to be pure, friendly, gentle, sensible, kind, helpful, genuine, and sincere. When peacemakers plant seeds of peace, they will harvest justice. (James 3:13–18, CEV)

An appeal for humility, right living, and bold faith are at the core of this epistle.

Jon Mark Ruthven makes these observations on James’ purpose for writing the Epistle of James:

[The Epistle of ] James is primarily practical and ethical, emphasizing duty rather than doctrine. The author wrote to rebuke the shameful neglect of certain Christian duties. In doing so, he analyzed the nature of genuine faith and urged his readers to demonstrate the validity of their experience with Christ. His supreme concern was reality in religion, and he set forth the practical claims of the gospel. (1)

It is the uniqueness of the Epistle of James that led to the near rejection of this book from the canon of scripture in the sixteenth century. No other book of the New Testament has such a laser-like focus on right living. To be clear, the Epistle of James was readily accepted by the early church fathers and was author-itatively quoted by Origen in the first half of the third century.

According to R.V.G. Tasker, “the Epistle of James had become firmly established in the canon of the western part of Christendom by the end of the fourth century.” (2)

But the early reformers and Luther in particular had little use for the Epistle of James. Luther considered the letter an “epistle of straw,” since it lacked the doctrinal heft of the other epistles. He relegated the epistle to the back of his German translation of the New Testament because, among other things, he doubted that it was actually authored by James.

Citing J.H. Ropes, Tasker asserts that Erasmus and Luther “ascribed the letter to ‘some good, pious man who had taken some sayings from the apostle’s disciples.’” (3)

But Martin Luther’s problems with Epistle of James ran much deeper than uncertainty about the book’s authorship. Luther objected to one of the central tenets of James’ epistle. James boldly asserted that “faith without works is dead.”

My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don’t do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you? If you know someone who doesn’t have any clothes or food, you shouldn’t just say, “I hope all goes well for you. I hope you will be warm and have plenty to eat.” What good is it to say this, unless you do something to help? Faith that doesn’t lead us to do good deeds is all alone and dead!

Suppose someone disagrees and says, “It is possible to have faith without doing kind deeds.” I would answer, “Prove that you have faith without doing kind deeds, and I will prove that I have faith by doing them.” You surely believe there is only one God. That’s fine. Even demons believe this, and it makes them shake with fear.

Does some stupid person want proof that faith without deeds is useless? Well, our ancestor Abraham pleased God by putting his son Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him. Now you see how Abraham’s faith and deeds worked together. He proved that his faith was real by what he did. This is what the Scriptures mean by saying, “Abraham had faith in God, and God was pleased with him.” That’s how Abraham became God’s friend.

You can now see that we please God by what we do and not only by what we believe. For example, Rahab had been a prostitute. But she pleased God when she welcomed the spies and sent them home by another way.

Anyone who doesn’t breathe is dead, and faith that doesn’t do anything is just as dead! (James 2:14–26, CEV)

Luther had ushered in the Reformation on the doctrine of salvation by faith alone—sola fide. He had staked his faith and actions on the writings of Paul, which clearly stated that salvation came as a result of grace through faith and not of works.

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, NIV)

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

For Luther the Epistle of James represented a clear contradiction of his interpretation of the passage above from Galatians, and other passages from Paul’s epistles such as Ephesians 2:4–8 and Romans 5:1–2. James’ letter placed great emphasis on right living, while Paul’s letters emphasized the rightness of faith in Christ.

Under Luther’s leadership, justification before God by grace through faith became the central theme of the Reformation. Works had no part to play in personal salvation, since salvation was not earned. It came as a gift by God’s grace. But with statements such as, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead” (James 2:26, NIV), James appeared to contradict the central tenet on which Luther’s understanding of faith was built. The Epistle of James appeared to undermine the founding premise of the entire Reformation.

Rather than reconcile these apparent doctrinal contradictions between two beloved apostles, Luther discounted James as an epistle of straw and shuffled it off to the back of his translation of the Bible—along with what he considered to be other low value books, such as Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

Tasker makes the following assessment:

He [Luther] had arbitrarily, and without any support from ancient manuscripts, placed the four books which he considered to be of doubtful apostolic authority and of secondary value doctrinally at the end of the New Testament published in 1522, to form a kind of supplement; and he did not number them in the table of contents. (4)

So, what exactly did Luther say about the Epistle of James? In context, here is J. H. Ropes’ translation from German of his 1522 words:

In fine, Saint John’s Gospel and in his first Epistle, Saint Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and Saint Peter’s first epistle—these are the books which show thee Christ, and teach thee everything that is needful and blessed for thee to know even though thou never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore is Saint James’s epistle a right strawy epistle in comparison with them, for it has no gospel character to it. (5)

The impact of this negative assessment of James’ epistle has rippled down through centuries. It has also colored our perspective of the person of James. He has been viewed as a theological lightweight beside the likes of Peter and Paul. But is this a fair and accurate assessment?

History has not been kind to James. Although James played a prominent and pivotal role in the first-century church, his role and his theological significance has largely been ignored, downplayed, or misunderstood down through the ages.

In the medieval period, the Roman Catholic Church drifted into what many reformers would call an idolatrous worship of Mary. This exaltation of Mary was matched with the development of several doctrinal positions which find no basis in scripture. These include the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily assumption into heaven.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is particularly troublesome when it comes to our under-standing of James, since it strips him of his lineage and his direct brotherhood with Jesus. Thus emasculated, his words and life story lack the rightful authority and gravitas that this direct link to Christ confers.

With the emergence of the Reformation, with its emphasis on the centrality of the holy scriptures, it would only seem logical that James would regain the recognition he deserved. But alas, this was not the case. Luther found James’ epistle wanting because he viewed it as undermining the doctrine of sola fide.

Furthermore, Roman Catholic theologians drew comfort from the Epistle of James because in it they found the basis for two sacraments: the sacrament of divine unction (anointing the sick with oil for healing), and the sacrament of confession to the parish priest. Luther rejected both as sacraments of the church.

Though the early reformers recognized James’ lineage as the half-brother of Jesus, they found his theology suspect, since it appeared to contradict the writings of Paul. They believed, the Epistle of James appeared to undercut one of the foundational truths of the Reformation, namely the doctrine of justification by faith.

With the dawn of the Reformation, a great rift emerged in Christendom, which led to the formation of the various Protestant churches.

The Epistle of James lies right at the heart of that fault line. Catholicism embraced a more works-oriented path to salvation—a path apparently endorsed by James—while Protestantism embraced salvation by grace through faith—a path endorsed by Paul.

These opposing positions led to war and upheaval in Europe on a massive scale. All this is beyond strange when we consider that in their lifetime, according to the scriptures, Paul and James got along very well. They collaborated, respected one another, and each admired the other’s gifting and calling. Now some 1,500 years later, Christians were killing one another in an argument over letters that these two friends had written.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Since the Reformation, some theologians would have us believe that these two men were at loggerheads, each with their doctrinal daggers drawn. As we have seen in earlier chapters, by examining their relationship through the lens of scripture, there is no basis for such an argument. Despite having strongly held views and differing spheres of in-fluence—Paul among the Gentile converts and James among Jewish converts—both were able to work with one another for the common good of the church.

So, are the theological differences between James and Paul more apparent than real? There certainly are several reasons to believe this is the case.

The first argument for a theological reconciliation between Paul and James has already been made. There is no evidence of relational conflict between Paul and James. Doctrinal conflict frequently leads to relational conflict, but the scripture provides us with no smoking gun in this regard. Texts written by Luke and Paul and the quoted words of James indicate a strong, healthy relationship between these two leaders.

Secondly, when examining a piece of writing, one needs to consider the author’s purpose. In his epistle, James was not writing with the purpose of laying out a theological framework for salvation, as was the case with Paul’s epistle to the Romans. James was writing an appeal to believers for righteous living. Much of Luther’s criticism of the Epistle of James is unwarranted. James is being faulted for what he did not write. This is like criticizing a dog for not being a cat.

Thirdly, on the surface it may appear that James and Paul are at odds on the role that faith and deeds play in salvation, but a closer examination reveals otherwise. For both Paul and James, having faith—saving faith—is not a passive response. True and saving faith is more than providing intellectual assent to a prescribed set of beliefs. That is precisely the argument that James is making when he claims that even demons believe in God, but their faith does not save them (James 2:19). For Paul as well, saving faith meant far more than intellectual assent.

Fourth, Paul and James agreed that genuine faith is personally transformative. Paul expected and called for personal transformation in the lives of every one of his converts. (See Ephesians 2:1–10.) How did that changed life reveal itself? Through deeds, of course. Time and again in his epistles, Paul calls for evidence of changed lives in the daily conduct of believers. Often these direct calls to action or works are found near the end of Paul’s epistles, since often he begins his letters by dealing with specific problems that have arisen in the church, or by presenting foundational truths of the Christian faith. (For examples of Paul’s calls to action, see Ephesians 4:25–6:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:12–22, and Colossians 3:18–4:6.)

James expected and called for personal transformation as well, but his epistle represents a shift from the Pauline paradigm. His entire epistle is a call for trans-formative, Christ-motivated actions, attitudes, and behavior.

In his discussion of the content of the Epistle of James, Jon Mark Ruthven makes this observation:

Rather than speculating or debating on religious theories, James directs his readers toward godly living. From the beginning to the end the mood of his letter is imperative. In 108 verses, 54 clear commands are given, and seven times James calls attention to his statements by using terms that are imperative in nature. This “bondservant of God” [James 1:1] writes as one supervising other slaves. The result is a statement of Christian ethics, which stands on par with any such teaching in the New Testament. (6)

The Word of God — photo by David Kitz

Finally, one needs to consider the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit inspired both Paul and James to write their epistles. If we believe in the divine inspiration of the holy scriptures, it then follows that these two apostles, using their skills and experiences, wrote as the Holy Spirit directed them to write.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

From the earliest times the church has recognized the writings of James and Paul as God-breathed. If the Holy Spirit directed James to write an epistle focussed on practical Christian living, who are we question the wisdom of the Holy Spirit? Our understanding of what it means to live as a follower of Jesus would be considerably diminished without the Epistle of James.

In many respects James acts as a counterbalance to Paul. His epistle counters the notion of cheap grace that places no requirements on the believer. A hefty dose of Luther’s doctrine of sola fide can lead to a culture of easy believe-ism and an aversion to calls for personal holiness. Within such a church culture, anything that requires effort or personal sacrifice is frowned upon because it might be misconstrued as an attempt to earn one’s salvation.

In the last century, through his writing and the example he set by his life and death, the German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned about the consequences of cheap grace—the results of which are a church rife with sin, which has no effective witness to the world because it conforms to the social and moral norms of the world. The Epistle of James is the biblical antidote to the easy believe-ism that Bonhoeffer warned against.

Similarly, a century before Bonhoeffer, the noted theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard saw the Epistle of James as his chief weapon against the hypocrisy of his day.

It is surely both interesting and illuminating to recall that, when Soren Kierkegaard in the middle of the nineteenth century felt called to use his great gifts of eloquence and satire in a sustained warfare against the worldliness and hypocrisy of the contempor-ary Church, it was the Epistle of James that both inspired him for battle and supplied him with the ammunition with which to fight. (7)

It has been said that any doctrinal truth pushed to an extreme can lead to heresy. Though there is great truth in the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, when this teaching is embraced to the exclusion of other biblical truths, the result is a dis-tortion of truth, since it does not take into account the whole counsel of the Scriptures.

Kierkegaard was keenly aware of the effects of this distortion of truth. For him, according to one of his biographers, the Epistle of James represented the ideal counterweight.

Kierkegaard, while acknowledging the truth of Justification by Faith, as directed against “work-righteousness” and the assumption that one can earn his righteousness, had seen that the temper of the times “especially in Protestantism, and more especially in Denmark” required the proclamation of a complementary truth—a bringing to the fore of the practical, ethical side of Christianity, not by any means to the exclusion or minimizing of its dogmatic aspects, but to the exclusion of that barren orthodoxy which would make mere intellectual belief the primary act of Christian faith. The highly practical Epistle of James… was and remained Kierkegaard’s favourite Scripture. (8)

So, what are we to make of Luther’s assessment of the Epistle of James? Through the benefits of history and hindsight, we can see that this “right strawy Epistle” was and is the perfect counterweight to the excesses of sola fide, when this doctrine is pushed to the extreme while ignoring the full counsel of scripture.

Clearly Luther made an enormous contribution to our understanding of the Christian faith and his courage, determination, and hard work rescued many truths of the Bible from the dustbin of history. His translation of the Bible into the vernacular of the people unleashed a tidal wave that transformed Europe and the world. Thanks to his foundational work, people all over the world can read the Bible in their mother tongue and decide for themselves if this letter from James is an epistle of straw or an epistle filled with nuggets of pure gold.

(1) Ruthven, “Introduction: James,” Spirit Filled Life Bible, p. 1893.
(2) R.V.G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James: An Introduction and Commentary—Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1983), p. 17.
(3) Tasker, The General Epistle of James, p. 21.
(4) Tasker, The General Epistle of James, p. 13.
(5) James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (Clark, 1916), p. 106.
(6) Ruthven, “Introduction: James,” Spirit Filled Life Bible, p. 1893.
(7) Tasker, The General Epistle of James, pp. 10–11.
(8) Robert Brettall, A Kierkegaard Anthology (Oxford University, 1947), p. 282.

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.

To the Twelve Tribes Scattered among the Nations

28 Sunday Jun 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christianity, church, faith, Gentile converts, Gentiles, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, Judaism, leadership, Messiah, Paul, Peter, Scripture

James the Reflection of Jesus
James through the Lens of his Epistle

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 17

We can learn a great deal about James through the Gospels, through the Book of Acts, and through Paul’s references to him in his epistles. But ultimately the character of the reborn James is most eloquently revealed through his own writing—through his epistle, the Epistle of James.

Biblical scholars are divided when assigning a date for when the Epistle of James was written. It can be no later than 62 AD, since Josephus indicates that was the year when James was martyred. There is some evidence that it may have been written in the forties, and if true, it would then predate Paul’s letters. William Varner is among the scholars who favor an earlier date. (1) In his notes on James, K. Arthur also situates the epistle “sometime before 50 A.D. or in the early A.D. 50s.” (2) R.V.G Tasker places the most likely date as about AD 60.

In his introduction to the epistle of James, Jon Mark Ruthven states, “We cannot be dogmatic, and can only conclude that the letter was written between AD 48 and 62.” (3)

William Varner’s early date seems improbable, since it comes before the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 that welcomed the Gentiles into the fellowship of the church. How- ever, a date in the early AD 50s or earlier is intriguing because it raises several questions.

Is the Epistle of James the first epistle in the canon? Did James set the pattern or standard for the other canonical epistle writers? Were Paul, Peter, John, and Jude following the example of James when they picked up the quill pen and wrote their epistles to local churches or more broadly to the universal church? Or alternately was James following the example of Paul when he wrote his epistle?

Due to James’ leadership role in the church, as demonstrated at the Council of Jeru-salem, it is not unreasonable to surmise that he may alsohave led the way in addressing the rapidly growing church through this Holy Spirit inspired literary form.

In fact, James had ample reasons to write an epistle. Having opened the door of the church to uncircumcised believers, he had a responsibility to ensure that these new converts were fully acquainted with the teaching and ethics of their Lord and Savior. Having put their faith in Jesus, how should these new believers live? With his practical, direct approach James answers that question in his epistle.

Furthermore, through his friendship with Paul and by his endorsement of his ministry, James had an envoy through whom he could ensure that his epistle was widely read throughout Paul’s network of churches.

As Ruthven states, we cannot be dogmatic on these points, but through James and Paul’s interaction we can see there is a logical progressionthat can readily explain the development of the epistles as a New Testament form of inter-church communication and teaching. James and his epistle sit at the heart of this first-century inter-church dialogue.

The Epistle of James appears in our bibles as the first of what are commonly called the general epistles. These epistles are called general because they are not addressed to a specific congregation, such as the church in Corinth or Ephesus.

But James does have an audience that he addresses with his greeting:

From James, a servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. Greetings to the twelve tribes scattered all over the world. (James 1:1, CEV)

There is a humility in James’ self-introduction that is worthy of comment. He does not identify himself as the brother of Jesus; to do so would be self-exalting. Instead, he simply identifies as “a servant of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

By identifying himself as a servant, James is accurately reflecting the character of his brother, who continually identified himself as a servant. On his final night with his disciples, Jesus assumed a servant’s role as he stooped to wash their feet (John 13:2-17). Now in his role as overseer, James addresses the church of Jesus Christ as the Lord’s
humble servant.

By declining to identify himself as Jesus’ brother, James is following the pattern of humility and self-effacement exemplified by his brother. Though Jesus was the Son of God, he did not refer to himself in those terms. He preferred the term ‘son of man.’ Even in his trial before the Jewish High Council, when he was directly asked if he was the Son of God, he answered, “You say that I am.” (Luke 22:70)

James takes the same approach as his brother. Rather than self-identify as the brother of Jesus, he allows others to identify him as such. He assumes a humble position. James refuses to take the place of honor until he is asked to do so, just as Jesus taught in one of his parables about guests arriving at a banquet (Luke 14:7–11).

James’ letter is addressed to “the twelve tribes scattered all over the world” (CEV) or as the more traditional King James Version reads “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.” At first glance one might assume that this means that James is writing exclusively to the Jewish diaspora.

Some Bible scholars interpret this phrase in this narrow, literal sense. But there is ample evidence to suggest that the phrase “twelve tribes” is in fact inclusive of all Christian believers regardless of race or nationality. Under the new covenant ushered in by Jesus, followers of Christ are the new Israel of God (Galatians 6:14–16).

Tasker sees the phrase “twelve tribes” as a symbolic description of the new Israel.

James is not addressing a single group of Christians with whose circumstances he is familiar, but various congregations of Christians scattered far and wide throughout the Roman world. Together, these groups constitute the people of God who are continuous with the old Israel but consist of all, regardless of nationality, who acknowledge Jesus as God’s Messiah. (4)

The view that the phrase “twelve tribes scattered all over the world” is a description of the church as the new Israel is strengthened by Peter’s use of a similar phrase in 1 Peter 1:1. Peter addresses his letter to “the exiles of the Dispersion” (RSV) or scattering.

In the same way Paul, in his closing remarks to the largely Gentile churches of Galatia, refers to them and the global church as the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). The point being made here is that the apostles saw all those who were redeemed by Christ as heirs of the new kingdom that he was establishing. This new kingdom is the “Israel of God” which James metaphorically calls the “twelve tribes” of the dispersion. According to Paul, the new converts are all the children of Abraham by faith. See Galatians 3:7. Thus, it includes all the redeemed who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

It logically follows that the Epistle of James is addressed to Christian believers every-where and for all time. The scattering or dispersion of believers throughout the world, whether through persecution or missionary endeavor, alludes to Jesus’ teaching about the growth of the kingdom of God as he compares it to yeast in a lump of dough (Matthew 13:33).

In the same vein, in the week prior to his death, Jesus taught via his Parable of the Tenants that a sharp change was coming (Matthew 21:33–46). He spoke this prophetic warning to the chief priests and Pharisees: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43).

The kingdom of God was being transferred from the Jewish nation to those who accepted the rulership of Jesus, the Messiah king. Christ’s dire warning had its ful-fillment with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the exile of the Jewish population from their homeland. Much of Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 24 predicts and describes this traumatic national event.

Paul points out that by God’s grace and through the message of the gospel, Jews and Gentiles are being drawn together in one body.

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)

With the opening salutation of his epistle, then, James was tapping into the great mystery of the gospel, which binds Jews and Gentiles together as one people through faith in Christ Jesus. He was writing to a dispersed and culturally diverse church he had explicitly authorized by his decision at the Council of Jerusalem.

And how did one become a citizen of the kingdom of God and member of the church of Christ? James provides the answer in the first chapter of his epistle.

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. (James 1:16–18)

With this brief statement James encapsulates the core gospel message. Salvation is a gift, Ephesians 2:8–9, from our gracious heavenly Father who has chosen us, 1 Peter 1:1–2, and given us new birth into His family through the Word, 1 Peter 1:23, which came to us in human flesh in the person of Jesus, John 1:9–13. In short, we become citizens of the kingdom through rebirth, just as Jesus taught Nicodemus in John 3.

This statement fully aligns with the teaching found throughout the other New Test-ament texts. James and Paul were initially opponents of the ministry of Christ, yet after their conversion they came into agreement on the key elements of the gospel message.

How did that alignment come about? Undoubtedly, it came about as both men met with the apostles who were present during Jesus’ active ministry. The Twelve heard Jesus’ teachings, witnessed his interactions with the crowds, and saw his miraculous powers. One can easily imagine James as an eager new convert meeting with Matthew, Peter, and John, and discussing the key events and the teachings of Jesus’ ministry—events he was not present for.

With the passage of time, it became ever more urgent that these oral accounts be recorded for posterity. In his leadership role, did James by word or by the example provided by his epistle encourage the gospel writers to record the events they witnessed and researched? Possibly. What is clear is that through his epistle, James conveys the ethos, character, and spirit of his brother Jesus.

In summary, James 1:16-18 establishes the apostolic orthodoxy of James’ under-standing of the gospel, and James 1:1 establishes the universality of the audience for his message. Now let’s dig deeper and consider the scope and content of his epistle.

(1) William Varner, James—Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Lexham, 2014), p.17.
(2) Arthur, The International Inductive Study New Testament, p. 355.
(3) Ruthven, “Introduction: James,” Spirit Filled Life Bible, p. 1893.
(4) R.V.G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James: An Introduction and Commentary—Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1983), p. 39.

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?

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

James the Apostle to the Jews

21 Sunday Jun 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christianity, church, circumcision, faith, Gentile converts, Gentiles, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, Judaism, leadership, legalism, Paul, Peter, Scripture, Solomon's Portico, temple, temple worship, uncircumcised

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 16

Before we transition to an examination of the Epistle of James, it would be appropriate to examine the Jewish roots of the church. No one in the early church embodies the Jewishness of this entity we call the church quite like James. And no event in the history of the early church illustrates Christianity’s link to Judaism quite like James’ decision in Acts 21 that Paul should participate in ritual cleansing at the temple.

Today Christians and Jews see their religions as distinct from each other. The decisions and actions of both James and Paul show that they did not share this view.

James was leading a profoundly Jewish church. He says as much. “You see, brother [Paul], how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20).

These believing Jews were not only zealous for law. They were also zealous for the temple and had not in any way abandoned the practices and ceremonies of temple worship. As James and the elders point out, four of their company—believers in Christ—were fulfilling vows and participating in purification rites. It should be noted that from Pentecost onward, believers were meeting daily in the Temple (Acts 2:46–47), and there are strong indications that this practice continued.

To Christians today, this may seem incomprehensible. We have well-established dividing lines that separate Jews from Christians and Judaism from Christianity. For James no such line existed.

A modern equivalent might be a televangelist having his infant daughter baptized at a cathedral by a Catholic archbishop. Or conversely, the televangelist might do a full immersion baptism of the archbishop. Yet both these examples fall under the broad tent of the Christian faith. But both James and Paul were even more radical. They were comfortable stepping across lines that we have established between two great faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

Some of our difficulties spring from a lack of understanding of this fusion of faith within the early Jewish Christian community. They saw Jesus as their Jewish Messiah, fulfilling all the prophecies of their scriptures. He did not come to do away with their faith or the Law, but to fulfill it—and he said just that.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17–20)

Also, Jesus in no way encouraged disobedience to the Law. Many Christians have a false impression of Jesus and his teaching. They assume that because he was supremely loving and forgiving, he must have been lax in his application of the Law or easy-going about sin. Just the opposite is true, and his statements recorded in the gospels make this abundantly clear.

Rather than lower the bar in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus elevates it. The Old Testament law prohibits murder; Jesus prohibits hate (Matthew 5:21–22). The Old Testament law prohibits adultery; Jesus prohibits lust (Matthew 5:27–28). He systematically demands more than the law requires by going to the heart of the issue, rather than simply looking at outward appearance or performance.

While Jesus condemned the hypocrisy and pride of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, he did not quibble with their adherence to it.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. (Matthew 23:23–24)

Similarly, Jesus did not abandon temple worship. If anything, he was an advocate for it. His cleansing of the temple was not an indictment of temple worship, but an attack on the abuse of that sacred space. He viewed the temple grounds as the rightful place for prayer, praise, healing, and the teaching of the word.

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.

“Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him.

“Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, ‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise?’” (Matthew 21:12–16)

In the same vein, though Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1–2), that prophecy should not be viewed as a vindictive declaration, but rather a lament.

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:41–44)

The conflict that led to Jesus’ crucifixion can be viewed as a dispute over the proper use of the temple. The high priest and temple authorities were enraged over the eviction of the merchants and money changers because they benefitted from this trade—and it was of course a direct challenge to their authority. In his commentary on this matter, William Barclay makes this assessment on the trade in sacrificial doves:

Clearly he [Jesus] had attacked this abuse. Further, these stalls where the victims were sold were called the Bazaars of Annas, and were the private property of the family of the high priest of that name. (1)

In addition, the high priest and his clan objected to Jesus’ use of the temple as his teaching and healing center.

For Jesus this issue went to the heart of his DNA. It was about being at home in his Father’s house and using it according to His will and purpose. It harkens back to his first recorded words as a twelve-year-old boy, “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49)

Furthermore, it was about the fulfilment of his prophetic mandate within this sacred precinct.

“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)

The Messiah had come to his temple, but the Jewish leadership was not prepared for him and refused to recognize him as their Lord.

There are strong indications that the apostles, including James, were fully at one with Jesus’ view of the temple and its proper use and purpose. They saw it as their prayer and worship center and the rightful home of their Messiah.

The apostles did not relinquish the dispute that Jesus had initiated. They were not advocating for the temple’s destruction, though they were accused of this (Acts 6:13-14). Rather, their goal was to turn the entire Jewish nation into believers in Jesus Christ, with the temple being used as their prayer and worship center.

The first physical healing recorded in Acts lends credence to this view. (See Acts 3:1–26.) Peter and John went to the temple at the appointed time for prayer. At the Beautiful Gate, they healed a man who was lame from birth through the power of Jesus’ name. When in amazement a crowd gathered, they preached the gospel message.

Peter and John were doing precisely what Jesus had done in the temple courts before his arrest and crucifixion. They came to pray, they healed the infirm, and they taught the people about Christ. They also got the same response from the authorities. They were arrested just as Jesus had been.

The story of this first miraculous healing of the apostolic age illustrates that rather than separate themselves, Peter and John participated in the rituals and practices of temple worship. They went to the temple at the hour of prayer—the time of the daily sacrifice—the time when Jesus, the pascal lamb, had offered up his life.

Because of persecution and fear, the Jewish church could have withdrawn entirely from the predominant culture—but it did just the opposite. The church inserted itself directly into the fabric of the community by meeting within the temple courts. “The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.” (Acts 5:12)

Solomon’s Colonnade or Portico was part of the outer court of the temple.(2) Meeting there was an outright challenge to the Jewish religious authorities, and it also served as a bold witness to the believers’ faith in the crucified and risen Christ—the Christ that these same authorities had sent to the cross. Despite arrests and warnings, they filled Jerusalem with their teaching (Acts 5:28).

It is well worth noting that the first public meeting place for the first century church was at the temple. This full, practical integration of Christianity with Judaism seems unnatural or contrary to us at the present. But James and the early believers didn’t want to separate themselves from the Jewish people—they wanted to win over their hearts. In fact, they believed faith in Christ would make them better Jews, since they would be accepting the Messiah sent by the God of Israel.

James was situated at the center of an epic battle for the allegiance of his people. To understand him, we must understand how he viewed his apostolic mission and how he went about pursuing it.

As much as Paul identifies himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, James stands out as the apostle to the Jews. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul self-identifies in this way, but he identifies Peter as the apostle to the Jews.

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. (Galatians 2:8–9)

As time progressed, Peter and John moved on to other fields—fields that included the Gentiles—while James remained rooted in Jerusalem. When we meet James in Acts 21, which may be as much as six years after Paul’s Galatian letter, it is apparent that James has assumed the mantle of the apostle to the Jews.

Perhaps the greatest temptation James faced was the temptation to withdraw from the culture and any involvement with the temple. To do so would be to admit defeat. It would mean ceding the temple to those who sanctioned his brother’s execution. But James steadfastly refused to turn his back on the Father’s house.

The temptation for the church to withdraw from the culture rather than engage with it remains to this day. Self-isolation is safer than being an active and engaged witness to the life-transforming power of Christ.

James’ instructions for Paul to participate in ceremonial cleansing should be viewed as part of a broader strategy to be a potent witness for Christ to the Jewish people. It was a strategy with which Paul agreed because of his desire to see the salvation of his own people.

Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Romans 10:1–4)

Paul views the Jewish fixation on righteousness achieved by the law as a huge impediment to receiving the righteousness of Christ, which comes through faith. James, Paul, and Jesus agree on this point. Salvation for the Jewish people from Abraham onward was always achieved through faith—an active faith—not merely an intellectual acknowledgement.

It would be folly to assume that James and Paul did not discuss these foundational matters of faith on occasions when they met together. The differences they had, which are often projected as irreconcilable, need to be viewed through the lens of their calling. Paul’s apostolic focal point was the Gentiles. James’ apostolic focal point was the Jews.

Salvation for both people groups comes through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, God’s own Son—the eternal Lamb of God. As we will see, on this point they are in full agreement.

Both James and Paul are determined to let their light shine before men (Matthew 5:16), even in the temple courts—even at the risk of their lives—even to the point of death. The violent zealotry for the law that plays out when Paul is seized, beaten, and arrested in the temple foreshadows what will ultimately happen to James a few years later. In Paul’s case, a Roman commander intervened to save his life.

James was not so fortunate.

Photo Credit Time Magazine, November 4, 2002 — the inscription on the James Ossuary.

(1) William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Two, Chapters 11–28—The Daily Study Bible (Welch, 1975), p. 246.
(2) “Solomon’s Portico,” by W. F. Stinespring, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Abingdon, 1984), p. 408.

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?

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

James Reconciling the Irreconcilable

14 Sunday Jun 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, bridge builder, Christ, Christianity, church, circumcision, faith, Gentile converts, Gentiles, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, leadership, legalism, Paul, Peter, Scripture, uncircumcised

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 15

In the scriptural record our next encounter with James is in the twenty-first chapter of Acts. It occurs due to a commitment (cited previously) that the apostle Paul made to James, Peter, and John, regarding help for the poor in Jerusalem:

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 2:9–10)

Apparently, Paul took this commitment seriously. A considerable portion of his ministry involved raising financial support for the poor in the Jerusalem church. He devotes two chapters of his second letter to the Corinthians solely to the topic of collecting an offering for this purpose. He also sent Titus his trusted lieutenant and other brothers ahead to be sure that the church’s offering was ready to be received upon his arrival (2 Corinthians 8:16–9:5). It is evident from these two chapters that this endeavor entailed a great deal of effort and strategic planning. Nor was this an isolated event involving only one church. As Paul travelled through his circuit of church plants, he took up an offering for the destitute believers in Jerusalem in each city. Paul justified his actions with these words:

This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift! (2 Corinthians 9:12–15)

It is clear from this statement that Paul saw this offering as a way to build bridges between the Gentile and Jewish Christian communities. Presumably this is part of the reason why James, Peter, and John originally proposed it—that and a genuine concern for the poor. Care for the poor is a prominent teaching in the Epistle of James. (See James 1:9, 2:1–7, 2:15–16.)

Poverty seems to have been common among the Christian believers in Jerusalem and a top-of-mind concern for James. There could be several reasons for this poverty. The early church appears to have attracted a large number of poor. Perhaps this was because Jesus’ personal ministry drew attention to the marginalized, to social outcasts, tax collectors, and sinners. (See Luke 15:1–2, Matthew 9:10–11, Mark 2:15–16, Matthew 21:31–32.) Early on the church in Jerusalem established a charitable ministry to help widows and orphans, and this likely attracted others who were also in need. (See Acts 6:1–7.)

Persecution also ravished the church. From accounts in Acts we know this included death and imprisonment, (Acts 8:3 and 22:4) but it likely also involved a loss of employment or advancement and possibly the destruction or seizure of property. Paul in his earlier life as Saul, the persecutor of the church, had contributed to this impoverishment. This surely was a motivating factor for Paul as he tried to make amends for his former conduct.

Finally, the communal lifestyle that the community adopted likely contributed to the general state of poverty.

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:44–47)

As long as the Christian community was growing, this communal system of care would work well, since there would be a constant supply of fresh funds coming from new converts. But if growth stagnated the result would be mutual poverty. If lands and houses were sold and the capital was used on consumables like food and clothing, long-term sustainability would be in jeopardy.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4:32–35)

At some point the scenario of general well-being and prosperity described above may have turned to widespread poverty. It seems likely that funds from the burgeoning Gentile church were needed to sustain this early experiment in communal living, hence the request recorded in Galatians that Paul should “remember the poor.”

This is the situation that James, as leader of the Jerusalem church, finds himself in Acts 21. He oversees an established church that appears to have plateaued. Growth has slowed, but the needs of the poor remain constant.

But even before Paul arrives in Jerusalem, he is forewarned that things will not go well for him there.

After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” (Acts 21:10–11)

But despite this warning, Paul would not turn back, saying he was “willing to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:12–14).

Luke’s description of the arrival of Paul’s delegation in Jerusalem gives us considerable insight into James’ position in the church and the state of relations between these two men.

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (Acts
21:17–19)

Did the elders who were present include some of Christ’s original twelve apostles? The text is not clear on this point, since the only apostle named in this circle of leaders is James.

Howard Marshall, in his commentary on this passage, observes that James “by this point had fully assumed the leadership of the church in Jerusalem.” (1)

We are told Paul specifically went to see James.

Firstly, this would indicate that there was an ongoing friendly relationship between James and Paul. This is reinforced by Paul’s statements cited earlier in his letter to the Galatians and by his earlier report to the Council of Jerusalem in the fifteenth chapter of Acts.

Secondly, it implies that Paul considers himself accountable to James. We are told he “reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.”

One is left with the impression that Paul sees himself as a humble servant of Christ and the church. He has returned to Jerusalem, the home base and headquarters of the church, see Acts 1:8, to present a generous offering for the support of the needy among the believers there.

Moreover, he sees himself as accountable for his actions and ministry to James the head of the church, so he delivers his detailed report before him. In many ways this resembles the procedures of churches or agencies that send missionaries today. The missionary from time to time is expected to report on the successes and challenges of his mission.

Paul’s first mission report was delivered to his sending church, the church in Antioch. (See Acts 14:27–28.) Later, in about 50 AD, he presents a report of pivotal importance to the Council of Jerusalem. (See Acts 15:12.) This then is his third report and his second one before James in Jerusalem.

It should be noted that Paul was accompanied by uncircumcised Gentile converts, Luke the author of Acts being one of them.

Paul’s report draws a rather lengthy response that gives us considerable insight into the mind of James and the state of the church in Jerusalem.

When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 21: 20–25)

Who may stand in his holy place? — photo by David Kitz

Who spoke the words shown within the quotation marks? Luke, the author, attributes these words to “they”—they being “James, and all the elders.” It is implausible that James and the elders spoke these words in unison. Most likely the statement Luke recorded is an accurate summation of their discussion—a discussion over which James presides. It logically follows that this statement provides a glimpse into the mind of James and the elders around him.

First, we are told “they praised God” on hearing Paul’s report of his ministry among the Gentiles. This signals James’ approval of Paul’s ministry and his specific call to reach the Gentiles.

As previously noted, Paul was not alone when he presented his report to James and the elders. He was accompanied by a number of Gentile believers. Luke uses the phrase “Paul and the rest of us” (Acts 21:18), thereby indicating his inclusion in Paul’s delegation during the day’s proceedings.

The presence of these Gentile followers of Christ certainly would have added weight to Paul’s report. These men were living proof of the grace of God being poured out on the Gentiles.

It makes sense that James would draw a good deal of satisfaction from Paul’s report, since it vindicated his previous ruling at the Jerusalem Council to open the door of faith to the Gentiles.

Paul’s report provided ample evidence that God endorsed this radical shift in policy. First, his ministry was accompanied by heaven-sent signs and wonders. Secondly, in quick succession he was establishing local churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece. Thirdly, these churches were thriving to the point where they were providing financial support for the church in Jerusalem.

But Paul’s success brought with it a dilemma. In the response to Paul’s report we are told that in Jerusalem “many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.” This zeal for the law presented a problem, since it had the potential of creating a deep cultural rift within the church. To ameliorate this problem, James and the leaders around him propose a bridge building exercise between Paul and these Jewish Christians.

Most often when divisions arise within an organization, misinformation lies at the root. That certainly was the case here. According to the above statement, the believers in Jerusalem “have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.”

None of this is true and James knows this, but to set the record straight and prove Paul’s adherence to the law, he is advised to take part in a purification rite with four other men.

Despite Paul’s insistence that Gentile believers need not be circumcised (Galatians 5:2–6), he did not give such advice to Jewish followers of Christ. In fact, he did just the opposite. Timothy, Paul’s personal disciple, is a case in point. Timothy’s mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Before setting out on one of his journeys, Paul circumcised him.

Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers. (Acts 16:3–5)

What is most remarkable about this example of circumcision is that Paul did this while going about delivering the Jerusalem Council’s ruling that Gentiles need not be circumcised. The reason given for doing this circum-cision reveals a great deal about Paul’s methodology. We are told that this was done “because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

Why would the opinion of the Jews in the area matter to Paul? Wasn’t he free from the rule of the law and living under the grace of Christ? By extension, why would Paul submit to participate in purification rites as prescribed by James and the elders in Jerusalem? We can find the answer in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

Paul’s purpose was evangelism. He wanted to “save some.” He wanted to win the Jews in the vicinity of Tim-othy’s hometown over to faith in Christ. The same motivation would have been at work as Paul returned to Jerusalem. He wanted the gospel presented in the best light possible. If submitting to religious observances helped prepare people’s hearts to hear the gospel message, Paul was willing to oblige.

But this desire that motivated Paul also motivated James. James wanted the entire Jewish nation won over to the gospel. He wanted his people to embrace the message of redemption through the death, burial, and resur-rection of Jesus Christ. This is after all the express mission of the church.

There are theologians who see vastly different motives at work in James and Paul, but a careful reading of the scriptures does not bear this out. There is no indication that Paul chafed at this recommendation to undergo ritual purification. He submitted to it willingly because he wanted to correct the erroneous perception that he had abandoned the law and was encouraging other Jewish converts to do the same.

It should be noted that this erroneous perception existed among Christian Jews who were “zealous for the law.” As we shall see, the perception of unbelieving Jews was that Paul was worthy of death. The first bridge that needed to be built or repaired was between Paul and Jewish believers. Paul would go to great lengths for the sake of cross-cultural Christian unity.

All of this was part of Paul’s grand vision for the church. His great desire was to have Jews and Gentiles united as one under Christ. He gives voice to this thought in his Epistle to the Ephesians.

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizen-ship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Ephesians 2:11–16)

Peace begins within — photo by David Kitz

In very practical, tangible terms, Paul is trying to make peace and work at reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. Paul does this by participating in the prescribed purification rites at the urging of James. These are precisely the laws, commands, and regulations which Christ set aside, according to the statement above.

Typically, these events are viewed from Paul’s perspective, but it is James who sits at the center these two camps—or is it four camps? James is trying to reconcile Paul and his Gentile converts with the Christ following, law-abiding Jews within his flock. James has a measure of sway over these two camps, due to his leadership role and the Spirit of Christ within him.

But beyond these two camps lies the broader Jewish and Gentile world. Both realms are innately hostile to the gospel. Yet as James sees it and Jesus’ Great Commission declares (see Matthew 28:18–20, Mark 16:15–20) the church is charged with reaching both these worlds.

James is fully vested in seeing both worlds reconciled to his brother, the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s why he en-dorsed Paul’s ministry at the Council of Jerusalem. That’s why he set the bar very low for Gentile entry into the church. And that’s why he rejoiced over Paul’s missionary report of rapid church growth among the Gentiles.

The Gentiles were being reconciled to Christ.

Full reconciliation cost Jesus his life. In this situation attempted reconciliation almost cost Paul his life. When hearts become hard, it takes a miracle to reconcile the irreconcilable. In this instance no miracle came. Whereas many hearts in the Gentile world were opening to Christ, in the Jewish world we see hearts are hardening.

When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.)

The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. (Acts 21:27–33a)

There can be no doubt that the intervention of this Gentile commanding officer saved Paul from certain death at the hands of his countrymen.

It was James who sent Paul on this dangerous and futile attempt at cross-cultural bridge building, but there isn’t the slightest hint of anger or regret on Paul’s part during the events that follow. He does not blame James for his subsequent arrest and imprisonment. He sees it as part of the will and purpose of God for his life. He embraces his suffering and makes the most of his opportunities to be a witness for Christ before the Jewish mob, Roman authorities, the Sanhedrin, Governors Felix and Festus, and King Agrippa and Bernice. (See Acts 21:37–26:32.) Ultimately his defence of the gospel will bring him before the emperor in Rome.

Paul sees all this as the fulfilment of his divine mandate received from Christ. Rather than viewing his imprisonment as a hindrance, he sees it as an opportunity.

In light of Paul’s arrest and imprisonment, did James have any regrets for counseling Paul to engage in this ritual purification? There is no indication of that. The apostles wore persecution and suffering for Christ as a badge of honor. (See Acts 5:40–42 and 2 Corinthians 11:16–29.)

James’ advice to Paul while in prison would likely be in line with the opening words of his epistle.

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, be-cause you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1:2–4)

In these matters, James was simply following his brother’s counsel as expressed in the concluding words of the Beatitudes.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:10–12)

The interaction between James and Paul in Acts 21 is the last occasion when we meet James within the pages of the Book of Acts. We see an apostle and a leader in his prime. He is exercising his authority over the church—an authority that extends beyond the local church in Jerusalem. The apostle Paul—the leading thinker, evangelist, and author of half the New Testament—reports to James and is accountable to him.

This raises the question: Were the other apostles accountable to James as well?

It could be argued that Paul may have developed a special relationship or bond with James. It may be that Paul saw himself as a disciple of James, and this is why Paul submits to him for counsel and advice.

But at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, both Peter and Paul give reports in a meeting over which James presides. Though not explicitly stated, Luke’s account of the church meetings of Acts 15 and Acts 21 leave the distinct impression that James was functioning as the head of the church.

When we encounter James in Paul’s epistles, we are left with a similar impression. Paul sees Peter as a colleague, but he shows a deference and respect for James that one would expect toward someone in authority. (See 1 Corinthians 15:7, Galatians 1:18–2:16.)

In turn, Peter shows the same collegial respect toward Paul. (See 2 Peter 3:15–16.) The accounts in Acts and Galatians portray James as the overall leader of the church, but this contrasts sharply with the Roman Catholic position that Peter was the designated head of the church. In fact, there is little evidence to support the Catholic position within the Acts account or any of the epistles.

All of this has huge implications for church governance, and it goes to the root of many divisions we see across the church world today.

James lies at the heart of all these issues. But for many, James, the brother of Jesus, remains a great mystery—as enigmatic as the stone box that bears his name.

Time photo of the James Ossuary

(1) Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 342.

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?

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

Why James?

07 Sunday Jun 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christianity, church, circumcision, faith, Gentiles, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, leadership, legalism, Paul, Peter, Scripture

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?

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

James the Mediator between Two Camps

31 Sunday May 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christianity, church, circumcision, faith, Gentiles, gospel, grace, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, leadership, legalism, Paul, Peter, Scripture

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?

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

James the Door Hinge for the Gentile World

24 Sunday May 2026

Posted by davidkitz in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christianity, church, circumcision, faith, Gentiles, gospel, James, James the brother of Jesus, Jerusalem, Jesus, leadership, Paul, Peter, Scripture, speaking in tongues

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 12 — Part II

Peter’s declaration in favor of grace for the Gentiles rather than the Mosaic Law was followed by the testimony of Paul and Barnabas:

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. (Acts 15:12)

Through their testimony, Barnabas and Paul persuasively reinforced the argument Peter had presented. The conversion of the Gentiles was God’s doing. He had initiated it through Peter and now was continuing that work through Barnabas and Paul. The proof of this was in “the signs and wonders God had done.” If God was opposed to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian faith, there would be no signs and wonders as the gospel message was presented. Instead, miraculous signs and wonders accompanied the preaching of the gospel, giving it credence. Large numbers of Gentiles believed the message they heard because they witnessed demonstrations of God’s power.

Signs and wonders were an integral part of the spread of the gospel as recorded in the Book of Acts. (1) Certainly, the apostles viewed these wonders as a natural extension of Jesus’ ministry. According to Mark’s Gospel, after his resurrection Jesus predicted this bursting forth of the miraculous:

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (Mark 16:14–18)

Furthermore, Jesus had promised his disciples that they would do even greater things than he had done.

Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (John14:12–14)

As the apostles heard the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, they undoubtedly harkened back to the words of Jesus. God was at work claiming a people for Himself. The proof of this was in the manifestation of signs and wonders as the gospel was presented to the Gentiles, their positive response to the message, and the demonstrable presence of the Holy Spirit among them.

There are those who see substantial differences between Peter and Paul, but there are none on display here. The core of the gospel message they present is essentially the same: the door to salvation is open to all, Jew and Gentile, by grace through faith alone in the redeeming death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Together here at the Jerusalem Council, Peter and Paul present a united front. They act as a tag team delivering the decisive blows that demolished the argument in favor of circumcision and adherence to Mosaic Law. We see them work in cooperation with one another here at the Council and later out on the field.

We know their position carried the day due James’ response:

When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon [Peter] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’—things known from long ago.'” (See Amos 9:11–12.)

“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 15:13–21)

From this account one clearly has the sense that James is presiding over this gathering or Council. He is providing oversight as the question is framed and opposing arguments are debated. At the conclusion of the debate, James states his position and renders his judgment on the matter. In this regard the Jerusalem Council proceedings resemble a court case with a presiding judge, namely James, pronouncing the final verdict.

There is no indication that this is a democratic assembly where a final vote on the motion is taken. Rather the Council follows the format of a judicial council, where the matter is considered and decided by a judge or overseer. This format was customary in both Jewish and Roman practise during this time and continues in various forms to this day.

In his statement James concurs with Peter’s testimony. In essence, he concludes that this is a decision that God has already made. “Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles” (Acts 15:14). He then goes on to reinforce his position by quoting from the prophet Amos.

There are several Old Testament scriptures that predict the Gentiles will turn in faith to the God of Israel. Why did James choose to quote this particular passage?

First and foremost, the Amos passage captures the thought that the entry of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom is God’s idea. It is the Lord “who does these things.” What Peter had described was an intervention of God in bringing the Gentiles at the household of Cornelius to faith. Similarly, Paul and Barnabas described God’s intervention by means of signs and wonders as they preached the gospel to the Gentiles on their first missionary journey. So James concludes that the conversion of the Gentiles was God’s idea and indeed God’s doing.

The phrase “David’s fallen tent” also merits some consideration. Jesus was a direct descendant from the kingly line of David. James sees God’s intervention as restoring the rule of the Davidic dynasty through the eternal reign of King Jesus. As the brother of Jesus, James may well have seen himself as part of that Davidic line extending the kingdom of God on the earth. Again, this is God’s doing, and James finds himself in the pivotal role of opening wide the door to the Gentiles.

Having stated his position on the matter, James renders his verdict. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). The Greek word krino is translated here as judgment. In fact, krino is translated as judge or judgment eighty-seven times in the New Testament. (2) Most modern translations render krino as judgment; however, the traditional King James Version translates krino as sentence. “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God” (Acts 15:19). By translating krino in this way, the King James translators highlight the magisterial role of James at the Council. He has declared his ruling on the matter.

There can be little doubt that James is viewed as the head of the church by all those present. He fulfills the role of chief executive officer. How do we know this? He has the undisputed final word on this crucial matter of faith, practice, and doctrine.

But one gets the sense that James was not heavy handed or dictatorial in reaching his decision. Through the discussion and a full airing of the matter, he was working to reach a consensus within the church. Evidence for this can be found in the actions that follow his ruling.

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. (Acts 15:22)

There was agreement among the apostles, the elders, and the whole church on this matter.

With his decision James secured the future of the church. Christianity would not remain as an obscure sect within Judaism. It would spread around the world and become a dominant force in world history through the next two millennia. His decision made possible the unhindered progress of the gospel in the Roman Empire and beyond.

James’ judgment puts truth to these words, which were sung about his brother Jesus and recorded in John’s Revelation:

And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every
tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”
(Revelation 5:9–10)

(1) See Acts 3:7, Acts 5:5 & 10, Acts 5:15, Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40, Acts 13:11, Acts 14:3, Acts 14:10, Acts 19:11–12, Acts 20:10, Acts 28:5, Acts 28:8.

(2) Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Index-Lexicon to the New Testament, Revised by William B. Stevenson (Eerdmans, 1972), p. 78.

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?

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

Planted by Streams of Water

16 Sunday Nov 2025

Posted by davidkitz in Psalm 1, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Christianity, faith, God, Jesus, judgment, praise the LORD, prosper, Psalms, the law of the LORD, the LORD, the righteous, tree

I will praise the LORD!

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Psalm 1

Listen to today’s reading by Jonathan Dent:

Blessed is the one
    who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers,
but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
    and who meditates on his law day and night.
That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
    which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
    whatever they do prospers.
Not so the wicked!
    They are like chaff
    that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
    nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
    but the way of the wicked leads to destruction. *

Para la publicación de Salmos 365 de hoy en español haga clic aquí.

Please pray for peace to return to Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine!

Volume I of Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer won the Best Book of the Year Award from The Word Guild and Volume II has won the Best Devotional of the Year Award. For those who love God’s word, this three-book series is an ideal way to daily meet with the Lord. To purchase or for a closer look click here.

Available now…

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

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

He Who Is Least

09 Sunday Nov 2025

Posted by davidkitz in The Elisha Code

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Banting, Bible, born again, Christianity, diabetes, evangelical, faith, God, gospel, humble, humility, insulin, Jesus, John the Baptist, Kingdom of God, Matthew, Old Testament, paradox, rebirth, servant, serve

On that day you, Jerusalem, will not be put to shame
for all the wrongs you have done to me,
because I will remove from you your arrogant boasters.
Never again will you be haughty on my holy hill.
But I will leave within you the meek and humble.
The remnant of Israel will trust in the name of the LORD.
(Zephaniah 3:11-12, NIV)

The previous chapter concluded with Paul declaring he came to the Corinthians “in weakness with great fear and trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3), but despite his weakness, God mightily used him to demonstrate the Spirit’s power.
There is something quite contradictory or paradoxical about Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 2:3-5, but this paradox of strength in weakness follows a consistent pattern in Paul’s epistles. He begins his first letter to the Corinthians by highlighting one of these apparent contradictions.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, NIV).

Paul is telling us that God and his Kingdom operate on entirely different principles than the values and philosophies of this world. God uses and shows favor to those who are weak, foolish, and of low status in the eyes of the world. God’s Kingdom is a totally upside-down Kingdom according to the world’s perspective.

Paul elaborates further on the contradictory, paradoxical nature of God’s Kingdom in his second letter to the Corinthians when he states, “That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).
This call for humility and submission is not confined to Paul’s letters. Peter explicitly calls for the same.

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. (1 Peter 5:5b-6).

James repeats this call for humility in his epistle. In fact, in their appeal James and Peter quote the same verse, Proverbs 3:34. (See James 4:6-7.)

The apostles’ teaching and lived experience simply reflected the teaching of their Lord and master Jesus Christ. Jesus’ life was a continual paradox. He was born in a stable, yet his birth was heralded by angels, the appearance of a star, and the arrival of magi from foreign lands. Then, he began his ministry with a manifesto that sets the operating principles of our world on its head.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3-10)

Jesus’ ministry centered on the poor, the sick, the oppressed and afflicted. Peter described Jesus’ life work with these words, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

Jesus was the eternal Creator of all things, yet through the miracle of incarnation he willingly subjected himself to the frailties and limitations of humanity. That included the humiliation of suffering the death of a criminal on a cruel Roman cross.

This upside-down perspective is at the heart of the Elisha code as revealed in the eleventh chapter of Matthew. In the previous chapters of this book, we recounted how the miracles of Jesus run parallel to the miracles of the prophet Elisha. In fact, there is a striking similarity in the content, style, and tenor of the ministries of Jesus and Elisha.
Furthermore, in Matthew eleven, Jesus definitively states that John the Baptist “is the Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:14). Again, there is a remarkable similarity in the intent, tone, and scope of the ministries of John and Elijah. So then, chapter eleven of Matthew establishes the link between the Old Testament prophetic duo of Elijah and Elisha and the New Testament duo of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.

But in his description of John, Jesus goes on to make a statement that is rather puzzling and frequently misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11, NIV).

The first part of this statement is very straight forward though quite startling. Clearly, Jesus held John in the highest regard—higher than any human past or present. Higher than Abraham. Higher than Moses. Higher than David. Higher than any of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus places John the Baptist at the head of the list, above all who ever lived. That is quite the honor!

But then Jesus goes on to say, “yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
So, who then is greater than John?

Evangelicals have puzzled over the meaning of this statement. Some have come up with a rather elaborate interpretation that relies heavily on dispensational theology. They reason that John was not born again; therefore, he is not included in the kingdom of heaven. Hence, anyone who is born again under the New Testament dispensation is greater than John.

However, this dispensational interpretation runs into several obstacles when we compare it with the whole of Scripture.

First, let’s be unequivocally clear. Spiritual rebirth is essential to anyone’s entrance into the kingdom of God. Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). We must come into relationship with God—be born into his kingdom to be citizens of the kingdom.

Monarch Butterfly — photo by David Kitz

Jesus’ statement in John 3:3 raises other questions concerning the believers of the Old Testament era. Will we see them in heaven? Are they citizens of the kingdom?

There is ample biblical evidence that John the Baptist and all the great saints of the Old Testament are citizens of the Kingdom. In fact, in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus said just that.

“There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last” (Luke 13:28-30).

Moreover, in Matthew 11, Jesus identifies John as being greater than all the prophets.

Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you’” (Matthew 11:9-10).

If the patriarchs and prophets of the old covenant are included in the kingdom of God, then surely John who Jesus identifies as being greater than them all is included as well.

Furthermore, Hebrews 11 makes it abundantly clear that great Old Testament heroes of the faith will be present with us in glory. In fact, they are part of a great cloud of witnesses cheering us on (Hebrews 12:1-3).

So from these scriptures it is clear that the Old Testament heroes of the faith are all citizens of the kingdom. But Jesus said they cannot be citizens of the kingdom unless they are born again (John 3:3). How can they be born again when that teaching had not been introduced yet? In John 3, Jesus provides the answer to that conundrum.

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).

Rebirth happens by the Spirit, and it has been happening from the very beginning. The day may come when we will meet with Enoch, Moses, and David in the kingdom.

The wind of the Spirit was blowing in the hearts of John the Baptist and the Old Testament citizens of the spiritual kingdom, and they were born again by the Spirit. This must be so, or Jesus could not say what he said in Luke 13:28-30 where he identifies them as sitting down in the kingdom of God. (They could not be sitting down in the kingdom of God unless they were born again.)

Moreover, there are not two kingdoms of God, one for the Old Testament believers and one for the New Testament born-again believers. There is only one eternal, spiritual kingdom of God, and we will all sit together in it.

Jesus is after all the great unifier of Jews and Gentiles just as Paul states.

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)

Jesus introduced us to the teaching and the understanding of being born again, but that does not mean spiritual rebirth was not happening before he introduced that teaching. Isaac Newton introduced us to the concept of gravity, but that does not mean the laws of gravity were not working until he introduced them.

Similarly, Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best discovered insulin in 1921, and in January 1922 they injected insulin into a dying fourteen-year-old, type one diabetic named Leonard Thompson. The transformation in Leonard’s body was nothing short of miraculous. Until that time a diagnosis of type one diabetes was viewed as a death sentence. Most patients died within weeks or months.

Where land ends, Bruce Peninsula National Park — photo by Karen Kitz

We too like Leonard Thompson are under a death sentence. We suffer from a deadly condition called a sinful nature. The cure for this condition is spiritual rebirth at the hands of the Great Physician, Jesus Christ.

Insulin was doing its life-sustaining work in human bodies long before Banting and Best discovered it. In the same way, the Spirit was at work drawing people like Moses and David into relationship with the heavenly Father long before Jesus had his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. And Old Testament people like Deborah, Ruth, Esther, and Jeremiah responded in faith as the Spirit of God touched their lives. They too came into a life altering relationship with God—a relationship that we now call being born again.

Logic dictates that these Old Testament saints must have experienced rebirth, or they could not sit down in the kingdom of God as Jesus declares they will in Luke 13:28-30.

Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11:11 about “he who is least in the kingdom of God” is not about setting up a distinction between those who are born again, and those who are not born again, or drawing a distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament dispensations. Rather, it’s a passage about humility, where Jesus takes on the identity of being the one who is least in the Kingdom of God.

Now let’s again look at Matthew 11:11 with fresh eyes.

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11, NIV).

After stating that John is the greatest man who ever lived, Jesus asserts that the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than John. So, who then is greater than John?

Surely, we can all agree that Jesus is greater than John. He is after all the king of the kingdom. But in true contradictory, paradoxical fashion Jesus casts himself as being least in the kingdom of God. Jesus takes on that identity because he came to serve, suffer, and die.

So then, Matthew 11:11 is a passage that portrays Jesus humbling himself and taking the lowest position though he is King of all. This is the ultimate paradox expressed in a brilliant turn of phrase—so brilliant its meaning has eluded more than a few theologians.

Paul beautifully describes Christ’s humiliation and subsequent exaltation with these familiar words:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:6-11, NIV).

With his statement in Matthew 11:11, Jesus is making himself nothing and taking on the very nature of a servant just as Paul describes.

Furthermore, this self-deprecation follows a pattern that we see repeated in Matthews Gospel. Jesus repeatedly tells reverse stories, paradoxical parables where the first will be last. See Matthew 18:1-5, Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16, Matthew 20:28. These passages assert that Jesus and his kingdom work on principles and values that are the opposite of those found in the world. The poor have true wealth. The weak are strong. The despised are honored. Matthew 11:11 fits into this pattern of reversal with Jesus taking the lowest or least position.

But why is this emphasis on humility significant? What is the application for us today? Humility is at the core of the Elisha Code. We too need to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. We too need to humble ourselves and serve as he did.

The world will not be won to Christ by millionaire evangelists and pastors crisscrossing the globe in their private jets and preaching a gospel of prosperity and self-fulfillment. The world will be won by the meek—those who know how to humble themselves and serve—serve at the cost of their lives as the first century apostles did. That is the Jesus way—the way of the cross.

This is the nineth weekly excerpt from the award-winning book
The Elisha Code & the Coming Revival

A soul-gripping read.
Is a return-to-Jesus revival possible in our time?
This book points the way forward.
For details click here.

The Elisha Code & the Coming Revival

07 Sunday Sep 2025

Posted by davidkitz in revival

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Billy Graham, Christian theology, Christianity, faith, God, God's word, gospel, Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit inspired, Jesus, Jesus Movement, preach Jesus, revival, spiritual renewal

Discovering Jesus Blueprint for Renewal

By
David Kitz & Dr. Ed Hird

Foreword by Lee Grady

I became a serious Christian at the tail end of the Jesus movement. I was too young to remember the hippie beads, tie-dyed shirts and “Jesus Is Groovy” slogans, but the songs were still popular when I was in college (including musicians such as Andrae Crouch, Love Song and Second Chapter of Acts), as were the movies—especially The Cross and the Switchblade.

The Jesus movement was like a spiritual tsunami that washed over hundreds of thousands of young people in the late 1960s and early ‘70s and brought them into a personal relationship with Christ. Some of these kids had been drug addicts and social misfits; most were just average Joes and Janes who discovered that Jesus is a lot more exciting than traditional churches had led them to believe.

Lately I find myself waxing nostalgic for those days—not because I want to return to the awkward fashions and hairstyles of 1972, but because I miss the spiritual simplicity of that era. The Jesus movement was primarily focused on—surprise!—Jesus. Theology was not complicated; pastors weren’t trying to be hip or sophisticated or tech-savvy, and we hadn’t yet created a Christian subculture with its own celebrities and political power bases.

Today, we just don’t preach enough about Jesus. In today’s ultra cool megachurch era, we’ve become experts on everything but basic Christian theology 101. In my recent travels I’ve been horrified to learn that many believers have given up the discipline of reading their Bibles even semi-regularly, and very few believers have ever led anyone to faith in Christ. One by one we are trading in our solid moral values for a squishy, spineless, whatever-is-right-for-you faith. People today prefer a steady diet of culturally relevant, fast-paced, techno-theology that is a poor substitute for biblical discipleship.

Even many Spirit-filled believers have developed the attitude that a simple focus on Christ isn’t enough. We’d rather go to a “prophetic encounter” to hear who will win the next election, or experience some exotic spiritual manifestation (gold dust, gems falling out of the ceiling). Or we prefer to ask Rev. Flash-in-the-Pan to pray for us for the sixteenth time so we can receive yet another “special anointing” that we will probably never use.

In the midst of all this chaos, where is Jesus? Am I the only one out there who is weary of this distraction? Thankfully not. I am so pleased to read this book by Ed Hird and David Kitz because they share my concerns. The Elisha Code and the Coming Revival is a refreshing challenge to return to Jesus—and to expect spiritual revival when we clean up our message.

Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve decided to get back to the basics of the faith. That’s why I am reading What Jesus Is All About?, a classic book written 70 years ago by Henrietta Mears, a Bible teacher who helped mentor both Billy Graham and Bill Bright in the 1940s.

Mears explains in her book how each of the four gospels give us a unique, four-dimensional portrait of the Savior. According to Mears:

Matthew was written to Jews to tell of a Promised Messiah who is also a King—and it uses the word “kingdom” 55 times.
Mark was written to Gentiles to tell of a Powerful Savior—and it reports more miracles than any other gospel.
Luke was written by a Gentile to tell of a Perfect Savior—and it has the most references to Jesus’ humanity.
John was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to tell of a Personal Savior—and it has the most references to Jesus’ divine nature.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible knew we needed more than a one, two, or three-dimensional look at Jesus. The Spirit gave us a four-dimensional view so that we could gaze at Him from all sides and become captivated by His magnificence—His supreme kingship, His compassionate mercy, His supernatural power, His perfect justice, His amazing humility and His love for sinners like you and me.

There’s so much more to Jesus than we realize. And there is so much more to say about Him than we are telling our generation. Instead of giving people a gospel diluted with left-wing or right-wing politics, or a message mixed with cultural “relevance,” we need to give them the real Jesus.

In this insightful book, full of keen insights from the lives of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the authors challenge us to examine our message, repent of our unfaithfulness and embrace the raw courage to preach Jesus again. As you read this book, please allow God’s powerful Word to cut deep.

Lee Grady
Former Editor, Charisma
Author, Follow Me and The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale
Director, The Mordecai Project

This is the first weekly excerpt from the award-winning book
The Elisha Code & the Coming Revival

A soul-gripping read.
Is a return-to-Jesus revival possible in our time?
This book points the way forward.
For details click here.

I love the Psalms

~ Connecting daily with God through the Psalms

Tag Archives: Christianity

James—More than an Epistle of Straw

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 18

To the Twelve Tribes Scattered among the Nations

James the Reflection of Jesus
James through the Lens of his Epistle

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 17

James the Apostle to the Jews

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 16

(1) William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Two, Chapters 11–28—The Daily Study Bible (Welch, 1975), p. 246.
(2) “Solomon’s Portico,” by W. F. Stinespring, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Edited by George Arthur Buttrick (Abingdon, 1984), p. 408.

James Reconciling the Irreconcilable

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 15

(1) Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 342.

Why James?

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 14

James the Mediator between Two Camps

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 13

James the Door Hinge for the Gentile World

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 12 — Part II

(1) See Acts 3:7, Acts 5:5 & 10, Acts 5:15, Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40, Acts 13:11, Acts 14:3, Acts 14:10, Acts 19:11–12, Acts 20:10, Acts 28:5, Acts 28:8.

(2) Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Index-Lexicon to the New Testament, Revised by William B. Stevenson (Eerdmans, 1972), p. 78.