Tag Archives: Joseph

The Final Cut

29 Sunday Mar 2026

Posted by in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 7

At this point many readers may feel that this rift in Jesus’ natural family is overstated. Theologians and Bible scholars generally have not raised this matter, and it certainly is not a point of common discussion among believers, or a Sunday sermon topic within churches today. However, when one takes the time to connect the dots—make the links—the biblical record is quite clear. Jesus came from a dysfunctional family. A massive family rift existed between Jesus and his half-brothers, and James was at the crux of this division. No event brings this out more clearly than the crucifixion of Jesus.

But before we connect that final dot, let’s review the evidence of this rift as it has been presented thus far:

• Jesus was rejected by the people of his hometown, Nazareth,
and barely escaped being thrown off the cliff on which the
town was built. (Luke 4:16–30; see also Matthew 13:54–58
and Mark 6:1–6.)

• According to John, the gospel writer, Jesus’ brothers did not
believe in him or his divine mission. See John 7:1–13.

• At a point early in Jesus’ three-year ministry, his brothers and
his mother came to get Jesus because they believed he was out
of his mind. In response, Jesus identified his followers as his
true family. (Luke 4:16–30; see also Matthew 13:54–58 and
Mark 6:1–6.) Jesus taught a counter-cultural gospel of spiritual
rebirth into God’s family. (John 1:11–13 and John 3:1–21.)

• Membership in this new spiritual family required a radical
loyalty to Christ, which superseded the importance of one’s
blood relatives. (Matthew 10:34–39; see also Luke 14:26–27.)

Mackenzie King Estate, Gatineau Park — photo by David Kitz

The picture that emerges is quite clear. Following his baptism by John, Jesus left home and assumed a new identity—his true identity. He no longer identifies as the son of Joseph. He is the Son of God, even as the voice coming from heaven identified him at his baptism. (See Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22.) His birth family, or at least the male members of it, have rejected him as insane or possibly demon possessed. They stand aloof from him, and none of them are numbered among his followers.

Mary finds herself caught in the middle, torn between her faith in and love for her firstborn, and the fierce rejection he has engendered among her other sons. She knows the secret of his divine conception and the prophetic words that were spoken over him. She witnessed the miracles and the angelic confirmation that surrounded the events of his birth. Mary believes—no, she knows—that her son Jesus is the Son of God. At her prompting, he performed his first miracle at Cana (John2:1–12). Yet here she finds herself caught in the middle of this storm of opposition—opposition within her own family. Owing to this opposition, she can only follow Jesus at a distance. She is not numbered among the women who supported and accompanied Jesus and his roving apostolic band as recorded in Luke’s Gospel:

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. (Luke 8:1–3)

Undoubtedly, Mary followed the reports of Jesus’ ministry with great interest. Repeatedly the gospel accounts record how the news of Jesus’ miraculous signs and healings spread throughout the entire region of Galilee and Judea. These reports would spur Mary to even greater faith. Surely the biblical prophecies were coming true. Her son was the long-awaited Messiah. His miraculous powers testified to his divinity. For Mary and thousands of others, hope tingled in the air. Israel’s day of deliverance was drawing nigh.

It is amid this air of expectant hope that Mary set out from Galilee to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem. This annual pilgrimage was a well-established family tradition (Luke 2:41–42). Undoubtedly, she travelled in the company of one or more of her adult sons: James, Joseph, Simon, or Judas (Jude). No middle-aged woman at that time would undertake such a pilgrimage on her own.

Above all, Passover was and is a family celebration of the deliverance of the firstborn from the angel of death. It is a time for families to gather together. For Mary this journey would have brought back memories of that journey years earlier with her twelve-year-old firstborn, Jesus. Due to the rupture in relations recorded earlier, he was not part of the family gathering now. Jesus was with his new family, his disciples. He was going about “his Father’s business” (Luke 2:49).

But his presence amidst the festive throng stirred their collective faith as never before. They sensed the anticipation. Surely, the long-awaited kingdom of God was at hand. On the final morning of their journey, as they left Jericho for the ascent to Jerusalem, their hopes were confirmed. To the astonishment of all, Jesus performed one of his greatest miracles. Mark’s gospel gives us the most lucid account:

As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging.

When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”

So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

“What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.

The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”

“Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. (Mark 10:46–52)

The effect that this demonstration of heaven-sent power had upon the crowd cannot be overestimated. This was divine confirmation. The Messiah had come—was walking among them now! Deliverance was at hand. Surely, Jesus was the promised son of David—the anointed one—the Christ.

Wikimediacommons

That morning Jesus did more than open the eyes of a beggar; he opened the eyes of the pilgrims to his divine call and mission. And as they continued their journey, that beggar, Bartimaeus, was walking, talking, living proof of the Messiah’s power. A blind beggar, healed and set free, embodied the Passover pilgrims’ hopes and dreams. They too could be set free from the bondage of Roman rule. Anything was possible. The kingdom of God was among them. The rightful king of the kingdom was walking the dusty road with them.

As they reached the outskirts of Jerusalem, the excitement built to a crescendo. Jesus climbed on the back of a commandeered donkey, and the crowd began to hail him as king. In doing this, he and his followers signaled that he was the coming Messiah-King, the Christ, spoken of in Old Testament prophecy ((Zechariah 9:9).

Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,

“Hosanna!”

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”

“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”

“Hosanna in the highest heaven!” (Mark 11:8–10)

Mary’s heart must have swelled with pride as this image unfolded. Her firstborn was being hailed as king! Before her very eyes the words of the angel Gabriel—the words of the annunciation—were coming true.

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end. (Luke 1:32–33)

Only Caiaphas, the high priest, and Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, stood in the way. All too soon these aspirations of greatness came crashing down. The soft power of a spiritual kingdom collided with the brute force of Rome. Though this grand arrival set all of Jerusalem in a stir, Matthew 21:10–11, the powers that be were not about to surrender authority and control to a so-called prophet from Nazareth.

Upon his arrival Jesus launched a coup. But the coup was not against the Romans. Instead, it was against the temple authorities. Jesus set about cleansing the temple compound of marketers and moneychangers, and then he turned it into his center for healing and teaching. See Matthew 21:12–17. The high priestly clan would countenance none of this. The crafty Caiaphas plotted revenge. See John 11:47–53.

The week that began with a king on a donkey ended with a king on a cross.

For Mary the more ominous words of another prophet were about to come true. At the infant Jesus’ dedication in the temple, the prophet Simeon had said to Mary, “And a sword will pierce your own soul too” (Luke 2:35b). The cruelest cut was yet to come.

Sunday’s elation transitioned to midweek apprehension and finally Friday’s death and despair. An incomprehensible reversal—an unfathomable descent into hell—that’s what Mary experienced.

Her midmorning arrival at the foot of her son’s cross evokes a level of pathos that breaks the bounds of description.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25–27)

Jesus committed his mother into the care of John, his dearest disciple, “the disciple whom he loved.” This was the spoken will of a dying man, and according to the text above, Mary and John carried out Jesus’ will. Mary moved into John’s home.

This event raises a whole series of questions:

• Why would Jesus commit his mother into the care of his
disciple?

• Why would Mary agree to this new living arrangement?

• Where were Jesus’ brothers? Why are they not with their
mother at the foot of the cross?

• What was the motive and basis for this new living arrangement?

None of this makes sense unless there was a deep rift—an estrangement—between Jesus and his brothers. As we have already seen, such an estrangement was evident early on in Jesus’ ministry. His crucifixion brought this rift fully into the open. Here was the climax—the final cut. The family is torn asunder. As for Mary, she has irrevocably aligned herself with Jesus, her firstborn.

But where is James in all this? Where are the other half-brothers? It is unimaginable or highly unlikely that James was not present in Jerusalem for this Passover. The Passover was a family celebration, and with Joseph’s death, and Jesus’ abandonment or abdication of his family responsibilities, James was now the head of the home. Since we know Mary did not come to Jerusalem with Jesus and his apostolic band, we must conclude that she came with James. As the oldest son of Joseph, it was his responsibility to lead the family in the sacred celebration of deliverance from the bondage of Egypt through the blood of the Passover lamb.

It is reasonable to believe that while Jesus was celebrating his last Passover meal and instituting the communion sacrament with his spiritual family—his disciples in Jerusalem—James was leading the Passover celebration with Mary his mother and Jesus’ natural family members at another location in the city. The house of Joseph was divided.

James was not present at the communion table because clearly there was no spiritual union between him and Jesus. By instituting this sacrament Jesus established a link between his imminent death—as the paschal lamb offered up for the sins of the world—and the ancient Jewish Passover ritual. But there is a deeper meaning in this blood sacrifice that warrants further exploration.

Using the emblems of bread and wine, Jesus commanded his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. Though his words should be interpreted figuratively or spiritually, (John 6:63) they nonetheless represent a drastic departure from orthodox Jewish teaching. Human sacrifice is universally condemned under the Old Covenant, and though the meat of the sacrificial animal or paschal lamb was consumed, by a direct command of God the blood must never be. “And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people” (Leviticus 7:26–27).

The prohibition is sharp.

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus introduced this teaching about eating his body and drinking his blood in the town of Capernaum in Galilee, prior to instituting the sacrament at his last Passover in Jerusalem. Not surprisingly, his teaching was roundly rejected at that time.

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. (John 6:53–59)

The thought of eating human flesh and drinking human blood is disgusting, repulsive, and strictly forbidden in religious law. The response of the faithful in Capernaum should surprise no one. “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’” (John 6:60)

John goes on to report the effect that this teaching had on his followers. “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (John 6:66).

The question that naturally springs to mind is: Why introduce such a disturbing teaching? Why attempt to overthrow centuries of religious law?

Clearly Jesus must have attached a great deal of significance to this doctrine. It was not peripheral; it was at the core of his teaching. Furthermore, it was at the core of his teaching because it was at the core of his being. It was about his DNA—divine eternal DNA being transferred to his followers. This is why Jesus says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:56–57).

Eternity was written into Christ’s DNA, and to have eternal life, his followers must have eternal DNA. Eternal DNA is found in the blood of Christ. That is why in the sacrament he offers his blood to his followers. In his blood is the life of God. In communion, on a symbolic spiritual level, we become partakers in the DNA of Christ.

To impart eternal life to his disciples, which is only available through his shed blood, Jesus overturns the centuries’ old Levitical prohibition against consuming blood:

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. (Leviticus 17:11)

Not only did Jesus’ followers need to partake in his divine DNA, but they also needed to be cleansed by and forgiven through the sacrifice of his body. His shed blood atones for their sins, making them acceptable to God their Father. The writer of the Book of Hebrews makes this concept clear when he states, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:21–23).

Forgiveness and eternal life are available now through the body and blood of Christ for all who believe. But at this point in our narrative James does not believe. He stands outside the family of God as described by his half-brother, the Lamb of God. James has not experienced a spiritual rebirth. To him this talk of consuming his brother’s flesh and blood is the gibberish of a madman—or worse yet, highhanded blasphemy.

While Jesus instituted the holy sacrament, James, the firstborn son of Joseph, celebrated the Jewish Passover in the traditional way. As a dutiful mother and the family matriarch, Mary would be present with James. But her heart was with Jesus—her firstborn. After all, this memorial celebration was all about the firstborn who was protected from the Angel of Death by the blood of the Passover lamb.

Photo by Kat Smith on Pexels.com

The spiritual family and the natural family of Jesus celebrated the Passover in strikingly different ways. For the most part, this is a difference that continues to this day, as Passover and the celebration of the Eucharist mark the dividing line between the Jewish and Christian faith.

The very next morning, though James was present in the city, he refused to come with his mother to the foot of the cross. As his half-brother Jesus, the Lamb of God, hung dying, James would not climb the hill of Golgotha to bid him farewell. That is how intense the animosity he felt toward Jesus was. James shunned and despised Jesus in the moment of his greatest suffering—in the moment of his death.

Undoubtedly, before Mary arrived at the foot of the cross, there was an intense and heated conversation between her and James. This conversation is not recorded in scripture; it happened off-camera, so to speak. But it’s not difficult to imagine the issues at play.

Mary is caught in the jaws of this horrific turn of events. Mary’s soaring hopes and dreams for her messianic son have come crashing to the ground. Her faith is shattered. Heaven’s promise has turned into hell—an intensely personal hell. In her grief, her only thought is to spend a few final minutes with the child she bore, the child she nursed and loved—the son of her most cherished dreams.

James on the other hand is seized with a mixture of anguish and rage. He sees his brother’s crucifixion as a natural consequence flowing from the words and actions of a dangerously deluded mind. He had tried to put an end to this messianic delusion—to take charge of his brother early in his ministry—all to no avail (Mark 3:20–35). Now his worst nightmare has come to pass. And what had all this talk of the kingdom of God accomplished? It led directly to death on a Roman cross—an outcome that was entirely predictable. Wasn’t this the reason he tried to take charge of Jesus? But the deluded fool would have none of it. He refused to listen to his family and the voice of reason.

As seen through the eyes of James, the sins of Jesus were numerous and stunningly heinous. He abandoned his family responsibilities. He rejected the wise counsel of his family members; in fact, he rejected his entire family (Mark 3:33–35). From the earliest days of his ministry, Jesus was a deranged rebel, who opposed the highest religious authorities in the land (Mark 3:22). Furthermore, he had the audacity to take his opposition to authority to the highest level. He denounced the strict and pious Pharisees, men whose legal scruples James admired. But not content with mocking the religious establishment from the sidelines, Jesus invaded the temple courts with his deluded hordes and challenged the authority of the high priest in his own precinct. Is it any wonder that Caiaphas reacted as he did?

But here is the most grievous of all his transgressions. Jesus had delusions of grandeur—of Deity. How could James’ brother—his flesh and blood brother—be God? Deity come in the flesh? Preposterous! Such an idea was beyond scandalous. It was the height of blasphemy. And James was proven right in this assessment when the Jewish high council, the Sanhedrin, reached its verdict in Jesus’ trial (Mark 14:61b–64).

What might James have thought at this moment? Death on a cross was too kind an outcome for such a fool—such a bastard!

And now Mary, the mother of this bastard—yes, and his own mother too—wants to say farewell to her bastard. Well, let her go. She was the mother of this bastard, and for reasons that totally confounded James, she had urged Jesus on in this course of action—this blasphemous folly to the shame and disgrace of the entire family.

Let her go. Let her go crying to her humiliated, bastard son. Wasn’t she the mother of this catastrophe—this affront to the Jewish faith? She was the source and the root cause of all the dissension in the family. From the moment of Jesus’ conception to this very instant, Mary had brought disrepute and an immeasurable dishonour to the house of Joseph.

Let the b*tch go to her bastard now, he must have thought. (I derive no pleasure in using these derogatory terms. Strong, insulting language is used here to signal the complete breakdown of the family relationship.) But in all likelihood, James also let Mary know that if she went to see Jesus, she was unwelcome in his home. If she went crying to him—if she sided with him—she too was an outcast.

This is a look into the mind of James on the day Jesus died.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Well, Mary made her decision. She walked to the foot of the cross. But she did not come forward alone. She came with other believers, her sister, “Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” See John 19:25. At last Mary has fully entered the circle of Jesus followers. She made a courageous and conscientious decision to associate herself with the family of God. She aligned herself with her firstborn.

Why did Jesus commit his mother into John’s care? Without this background, this decision makes no sense because Mary has four remaining sons—and daughters, as well. According to rabbinical law and practice, the oldest son was required to be her provider in her declining years as a widow. The decision to commit Mary to John’s care only makes sense in view of the scenario that has just been described. Mary needs a new home and a new family because she has been rejected by her remaining children, her own flesh and blood.

Mary stood before Jesus as a homeless widow without a family. She is not an orphan in the traditional sense of the word, but with the death of Jesus, she will become an orphan from her natural family. Therefore, Jesus entrusts her into John’s care.

With her arrival at the cross, Mary has taken on a new identity in the fullest sense imaginable, even as Jesus did when he was baptized. She has left the household of Joseph and joined the household of God. She will be forever known as the mother of the Son of God.

Jesus would not leave his mother in the care of an unbeliever, so he entrusted her to John, his dearest disciple.

There is a profound spiritual dynamic at work here. Jesus is signaling to all that spiritual birth takes precedence over natural birth. In his eternal kingdom, the spiritual family and spiritual DNA trump the natural family and natural DNA.

For Mary this was the final cut. She was cut off from her natural family and grafted into the family tree of God.

 

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.

 

The Role of James

22 Sunday Mar 2026

Posted by in Books by David Kitz

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 6

The dominant role that James played in the development of the rift between Jesus and the other members of the family should not be underestimated. With the death of Joseph, Jesus should have become the de facto head of the family. Being the firstborn son held great significance in the Jewish culture of that time, and with it came a number of responsibilities and privileges. The role of chief provider and final authority in family matters was certainly part of the package. Some of these responsibilities were cultural expectations, but others were actual requirements in the oral tradition, which later became Talmudic law.

Now here is the unenviable position that Jesus finds himself in. He is the firstborn, but he is not the son of Joseph. To use the colloquial term, he is the bastard son of another man—or so it would seem. Certainly, this is how the community would likely see him.

In a tight-knit, semi-rural community, it is reasonable to believe that from the moment of Mary’s initial pregnancy, there were whispers and hints of juicy gossip. Mary and Joseph were not living together. How did she get pregnant? Was this baby really Joseph’s son? As the child grew, in all likelihood it became evident from Jesus’ appearance that he was not Joseph’s boy. The local wags probably had great sport debating who the real father was.

Country road home — photo by David Kitz

To the natural mind, Mary’s tale of the visit from the angel Gabriel and conception by the Holy Spirit makes little logical sense. It is highly unlikely that she repeated this story to anyone except Joseph and perhaps her parents. Why say anything to anyone else? Why invite open ridicule from other family members, her friends and her neighbours? Let them think what they will. She knew the secret of Jesus conception: a secret it would remain. From Luke’s account of the lost boy Jesus in the temple courts, it is apparent that she did not even tell her son of his divine origin. It was left up to him to discover the identity of his true Father.

As for James and his younger brothers, as discussed earlier, they either discerned independently that Jesus was somehow different—not fully one of them—or they heard it from their neighbours and friends. They even may have heard it from Jesus himself. He was not shy in identifying himself as God’s son in the temple courts at age twelve. It is possible that young James and his brothers overheard Jesus’ response to his parents at that time, though they may not have originally understood the meaning and implications of his words. He may also have spoken with them about the identity of his real Father on other occasions, occasions not recorded in scripture, just as the patriarch Joseph revealed his divine destiny to his incredulous brothers (Genesis 37:5–11).

Finally, Jesus’ keen intellect, his love for the sacred scriptures and his general conduct surely set him apart from the other teens and young men in Nazareth. However, being different does not necessarily correspond with being accepted or popular among your peers. As pointed out earlier, Jesus’ ministry at the local synagogue was greeted with skepticism and open hostility by the townspeople (Mark 6:1–6, Luke 4:16–30). Additionally, his brothers did not believe in him. Though Jesus attracted many followers, many disciples—other young men like themselves—not one of his younger brothers are numbered among the apostolic band. As we have already witnessed, the relationship between them was tense and poisoned.

Without question, the death of Joseph must have raised several thorny issues. Did James recognize Jesus as the new head of the home? If Jesus was not the son of Joseph, then the privileges and responsibilities of headship should legitimately fall to James, Joseph’s firstborn—not to Jesus. For this reason, did the local religious community recognize James in the leadership role? Or did they recognize Jesus as the head of the household? Authorities in the local synagogue may well have had a say in this matter.

Photo by Vlad Cheu021ban on Pexels.com

Primogeniture also affected the family inheritance. Who was rightfully the firstborn in this case? And what role, if any, did Mary play in all this? Was she simply a bystander while the male members of the family and the synagogue rulers sorted out these matters?

Though Jesus’ half-brothers did not believe in him, without a doubt his mother did. She knew and experienced the miraculous nature of his conception and birth. She marvelled at the prophetic words spoken over Jesus at his dedication in the temple (Luke 2:22–38). We are told that “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). In addition, her words of concern prompted Jesus to perform the first miracle of his public ministry, as he turned water into wine (John 2:1–11). It is abundantly clear from the gospel accounts that Mary believedin the divinity of her firstborn. Undoubtedly, after the death of her husband, she found herself caught in the middle between her two strong-willed sons, Jesus and James.

To the present-day postmodern, the issue of primogeniture may seem to be socially insignificant, but this was of great significance to the society of this period. Even if there were strong amicable relations between these two brothers, this would still be a very trying question. If there existed the slightest hint of rivalry, unresolved grievances, or a competitive spirit, these issues could quickly turn into strife and bitter malice. It is reasonable to speculate that they did.

The Bible is largely silent on these matters. We have no indication as to when or how Joseph died. We catch only a few glimpses of the dynamics among the now full-grown members of the family, but the picture that emerges is rather disturbing. During the time of Jesus’ ministry, this appears to have been a household that is dysfunctional and deeply divided.

Did Jesus even want to be recognized as the head of Joseph’s home? Perhaps it was a responsibility that fell to him, but he did not want to bear it, since, according to his genetic code, he knew it was a role that was not rightfully his. Perhaps he took on the headship role through a sense of duty, but at every turn he faced resistance and resentment from his half-brothers.

James the oldest son of Joseph would have led this resistance, and an ambitious James may have been willing and eager to usurp Jesus’ authority. After all, he saw the leadership role as lawfully his. There were ample grounds for rancorous contention in this family, and by stitching together what we can discern from the gospel accounts, division and tension were clearly present as outlined below:

• When Jesus left the family home to be baptized by John, his
departure may have served partially as an escape from a poisoned
home environment. Forty days of fasting in the desert may have
been preferable to the ongoing rancour in Nazareth.

• This much we can ascertain from the gospel accounts: by
the time of the rupture in family relations recorded in Mark 3:20–35,
James is firmly in charge of the household.

• As the eldest son of Joseph, he is chief among the brotherhood
of unbelievers that make up his family as recorded in John 7:1–13.

• In consultation with his brothers, he has determined that Jesus
“Is out of his mind” (Mark 3: 21).

• He has organized a family expedition to take charge of his
deranged half-brother.

• Despite his best efforts, he has failed to make Jesus see the
error of his ways or regain control of what he likely sees as
a dangerous and irrational member of his household (Mark 3:31-35).

The half-brothers part ways. In the synoptic gospels this is their last recorded meeting before Jesus’ death.

For Jesus this rupture in relations means liberty. He is no longer answerable to James for his life and conduct. He is accountable only to God. From the time of his baptism by John, Jesus has extricated himself from the oppressive confines of his brother’s household. He is no longer the carpenter’s son. He has discovered his true identity as the Son of God, and now at age thirty, for the first time in his life, he is able to freely walk out the full meaning of that identity.

In the same way, Jesus called on his disciples to abandon all, including family, and come and follow him in a radical new way of life. (See Luke 14:25–27.) He is the Son of God. This truth becomes the central theme—the very core—of his teaching. His followers are children of God. He teaches them to pray to their heavenly Father. The fatherhood of God is at the heart of his message to the people. In the gospels, Jesus only directly addresses God by the name of ‘father’ or even ‘abba’ (daddy) except when quoting scripture.

As cited earlier, when he is called to see his mother and brothers outside the home where he is teaching, he answered,

“Who are my mother and my brothers?”

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31–35)

Please note Jesus does not say, “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother and father.”

The father figure appears to be missing in this happy family circle. Or is he? For Jesus, his father is God, and his heavenly Father oversees this—his spiritual family gathered before him. His followers are his family.

The fatherhood of God is so central to Jesus that he later instructs his disciples with these words:

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. (Matthew 23:8–10)

Indeed, according to Jesus’ radical new teaching, entrance into the kingdom of God is only possible through spiritual rebirth. Natural birth is insufficient. God must become your Father through the inner working of the Holy Spirit. His conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus
makes this point clear:

He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’” (John 3:2–7)

Citizenship in the heavenly kingdom is only conferred on those who are born of the Spirit through faith. Jesus made his own conception by the Holy Spirit the blueprint for his followers. They too must become living repositories of divine DNA. They too, by the process of spiritual rebirth, must become children of the heavenly Father. Baptism by immersion came to symbolize this inner transformation—this spiritual rebirth.

In his introductory remarks on the ministry of Jesus, John gives us further insight into this new creation—this new birth into the family of God:

He [Jesus] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:11–13)

Though Jesus was rejected by members of his own family as insane, he started a new spiritual family, a family born of God. Within that spiritual family he found a love and acceptance that superseded that of his brothers and sisters by birth. The importance of family by natural descent was replaced by the importance of spiritual rebirth. This was a radically new family—God’s family.

We can easily underestimate the dramatic shift in thinking that this required of his followers. Approaching God as a loving Father was a truly revolutionary concept. The Jewish God was austere, stern, distant and demanding; or so it was thought. But Jesus, God’s son, presented a totally different view of Him. He saw a caring Father who was as close as a whispered prayer—as near as our next breath. In the Old Testament the dominant metaphor for God is king—the ultimate ruler; in the gospels it is father—a family member.

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount presents us with a compassionate God who truly cares about his people:

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6:26–34)

The contemporary teachers of the law were all about the outward observance of the rules and strict adherence to the rigours of the written code. This was a tightly controlled and religiously regimented society. In this stifling social atmosphere, the message that Jesus brought was like a breath of fresh air. God was not an uptight, omniscient slave master. He was actually a loving heavenly Father, who provided for his children’s needs.

It should come as no surprise then that people flocked to his teaching.

The implications of spiritual rebirth—this born-again experience—cannot be overstated. In a society where the family unit was all-important, this was a dramatic departure from the norm. The Jewish faith was and is rooted in the family from its very inception, beginning with the family of Abraham. Your place within the faith is based on heredity and lineage. You are a Jew because you were born a Jew—because your parents are Jewish, you can trace back your lineage to Abraham.

Furthermore, this is a closed tribal system. Entrance into the faith, with very few exceptions, is exclusively by birth. God’s chosen people are chosen by birth. According to accepted Jewish teaching of the time, God has no adopted children. You must be born into the faith. Jews saw (and continue to see) themselves as heirs to the covenant God made first with Abraham, then with Moses, and then the children of Israel. But Jesus was describing a new, more direct way of relating to God.

The only way for a male outsider to enter this closed religious system was by a dramatic, painful and even dangerous outward physical change—circumcision. A woman’s only portal into the faith was through her husband or father.

Jesus’ teaching on entrance into the kingdom of God through spiritual rebirth threw this entire religious system into disarray. It began with the repentance call of John the Baptist:

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Luke 3:7–9)

The Jewish leadership rejected John’s message of repentance and baptism even as they later rejected the message of rebirth as preached by Jesus. They needed no repentance; they were children of Abraham. Their lineage alone guaranteed them a place in the kingdom of God, or so they thought. Jesus did not hesitate to prick their self-righteous balloon:

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:31–47)

Jesus looked beyond the outward and physical into the heart. (See Matthew 15:10–20). The human heart needs to be cleansed through repentance, and the human spirit, dead in sin, needs to be born again by faith through the Holy Spirit. This teaching was completely contrary to the outward religious standard of the times. For many, religion was merely an ongoing parade of hypocrisy. It was a public show one engaged in for the sake of appearance, but Jesus continually cut through the religious clutter to get to the heart. In his sermon on the mount, Jesus pointed out this hypocrisy and called for a genuine change of heart. (See Matthew 6:1–18).

Furthermore, Jesus allowed no place for middle ground. You align yourself either for or against him. In that respect he was and is a highly divisive figure. In the discourse cited above, Jesus essentially called his detractors sons of the devil. They in turn thought the same of him:

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” (John 8:48)

This was an insult of the highest order, but Jesus did not back down. In fact, he upped the ante. He closed off this heated discussion in the temple courts by claiming to be God:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. (John 8:58–59)

He did not say, “Before Abraham was born, I was.” Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” In so doing, he identified himself as Deity, the pre-existent one, the creator of the universe and the great “I am” of the Hebrew covenant. (See Exodus 3:14.)

To his listeners, this was blasphemy of the highest order. One should not be surprised that they tried to stone him. These are not the words of someone whom society would consider normal. They resembled the ravings of a madman.

So, then it would appear that James was right. His older brother was “out of his mind” (Mark 4:21). Here in Jesus’ own words, we have the text that proves that James was right in trying to prevent his brother from propagating this lunacy—this heresy—this fanatical teaching. Jesus claimed to be God. There can be no doubt that James believed Jesus would bring disgrace upon the whole family. This is why James distanced himself from his older brother. Undoubtedly, James also used his influence to prevent the other family members from falling under the spell of his brother, the deluded heretic.

As for Jesus, having left his natural family, he founded his own spiritual family of followers. From these he demanded absolute personal loyalty:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39)

Membership in Jesus’ family of born-again believers required absolute commitment—a commitment that superseded one’s commitment to flesh and blood family members. The cost of true discipleship was high, and it remains high today.

But Jesus was not asking his disciples to do anything that he did not ask of himself. His own household was divided and hostile to his mission. In a very real sense, his statement simply reflects the strife and division Jesus experienced within his family. He faced extreme opposition from his own family, and he anticipated that his disciples would face the same level of hostility as they chose to wholeheartedly follow him. Many believers throughout history and even today face severe opposition from family members as they seek to follow Jesus. Some have paid the ultimate price as martyrs at the hands of enraged family members.

Yes, Jesus came to bring a sword. He divided the Jewish nation, and he divided his family. The number of his f ollowers—his spiritual family—was growing, but so too was the opposition to his ministry.

Soon Mary would feel the soul-piercing power of the sword. This was the sword that the prophet Simeon spoke of during Jesus’ dedication as an infant in the temple many years earlier.

Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (Luke 2:34)

 

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.

 

A House Divided

15 Sunday Mar 2026

Posted by in Books by David Kitz

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 5

The family rift that is evident in John’s Gospel did not appear overnight. Undoubtedly, it had been growing for years. Most likely it worsened after Joseph’s death. His authority as the head of the home would certainly have had a calming effect, but with his passing, the simmering rivalry between the sons of Joseph and the firstborn son of Mary boiled to the surface.

Luke tells us that Jesus was thirty years old when he began his public ministry (Luke 3:23). All four gospel writers agree that it was his relative, John the Baptist, who lit the spark in Jesus that set the world ablaze. Jesus’ baptism by his cousin John was the starting point of the meteoric rise of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 1:36). The latent potential of his divine DNA suddenly came alive. His baptism experience marked a dramatic turning point in his life.

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:21–22)

Photo via pastorunlikely.com

The three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke provide essentially the same description of this transformative event. The Triune God is manifest: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father speaks words of affirmation to his Son, and the Holy Spirit descends in bodily form to empower Jesus for the mission that lay before him. The gospel writers leave no doubt that everything that follows in Jesus’ ministry had its starting point in this turning-point experience.

If Jesus the man ever questioned his own divinity, every shred of doubt was removed in that moment. This was heaven-sent confirmation. His Father had spoken—had spoken audibly. From the age of twelve, Jesus knew of his divine origin—his life source—and now he knew his destiny. He was God’s son. Though his brothers rejected him, though the world rejected him, he knew the love of his Father. And in the days that followed, nothing would deflect him from doing his Father’s will.

Called, chosen and approved by his Father, Jesus was now ready to walk out his redemptive mission.

John the Evangelist, the gospel writer, gives us a different perspective on this event. In John’s gospel we see the baptism of Jesus through the eyes of the one who performed it, John the Baptist:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” (John 1:29–34)

John the Baptist’s testimony adds considerably to our understanding of this life-defining event. Chiefly, he identifies for us who Jesus really is. In a moment of divine revelation, he declares, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com



John the Baptist did not live to witness Jesus’ death on the cross, but in that instant, he caught a glimpse of what lay ahead for the man he identified as the Messiah. He saw the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ mission.

In his own words, John tells us his own mission has now been fulfilled. “The reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

John the Baptist’s ministry will decrease; the ministry of the Christ, the anointed one, will increase. The torch has been passed. The new covenant has begun.

The Baptist makes no mention of the Father’s affirming voice from heaven, but he provides more detail about the coming of the Holy Spirit. He emphasizes that the Spirit remained on Jesus. From that moment on, the miraculous power that is evident in Jesus’ life can be directly attributed to the Holy Spirit remaining on him.

John’s endorsement of Jesus’ divine calling and ministry stand in sharp contrast to the rejection Jesus would later experience from James and the other members of his immediate family. For reasons we will never fully know, this blood relative recognized in Jesus what his brothers completely missed. Those who are too close sometimes fail to grasp what is patently evident to an outsider. Undoubtedly, John’s affirmation of Jesus carried considerable weight, since he was a public figure of national renown. Yet as we will see, it did not appear to persuade James.

This raises the question of where James stood regarding John the Baptist. There is no indication in scripture that James and the other family members submitted to John’s baptism. The gospel writers and John in particular give us the impression that Jesus acted alone. He came for baptism apart from his family. This was solely his decision, without the support or presence of his family.

This seems rather unusual given that John the Baptist was a close relative, and there was a strong bond between Mary and John’s mother Elizabeth at the time of their pregnancies—a bond so strong that Mary spent three months living in the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:39–56). Though the gospels are silent on this matter, it is easy to imagine these two families spending time with each other on special occasions such as the Passover. It is not unreasonable to surmise that as boys, John, Jesus, and James were playmates. Did they drift apart over time or was there a sudden rupture in relations?

In his adult life did James disapprove of John the Baptist’s message and tactics? The gospels leave the impression that John’s call for repentance and baptism was broadly accepted by the people of the time, but he raised the ire of one particular group.

But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matthew 3:7–9)

Later in Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees and religious authorities, it is abundantly clear that they have rejected John’s call for repentance. See Matthew 21:23–27. If James embraced the teachings of the Pharisees, it is probable that he opposed John’s message and his call for baptism. With their strict adherence to the Law and their extreme pride in Jewish heritage, the Pharisees and their teachings might have found a welcome home within the mind of James. His writings have often been described as having a legalistic bent.

If as a young man James fell under the sway of the Pharisees, he would find himself opposing both John the Baptist and Jesus, his own brother. Again, though the scriptures are silent on this topic, it seems quite likely that this was a family divided along religious lines.

The writers of the synoptic Gospels tell us that immediately following his baptism, Jesus entered a forty-day period of fasting:

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. (Mark 1:12–13)

Then, having overcome the temptations of the flesh and of Satan, (see Mathew 4:1-11) Jesus began his public ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit and under the watchful eye of his heavenly Father. The impact across the region is felt almost immediately.

Matthew gives us this summative overview:

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases,
those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. (Matthew 4:23–25)

What had come over the carpenter’s son? What did Jesus’ family think of this dramatic turn of events? Within a few months this young man, conceived out of wedlock, had become a much sought after religious teacher, a healer, and a crowd-gathering celebrity. Did they approve?

Mark’s Gospel provides us with a clear answer:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:20–21)

The answer is an unambiguous “No!” No, they did not approve. They thought he was insane. We know from John’s Gospel that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. Now we discover that they truly thought he had gone mad. Their own words best convey their rendered judgement, “He is out of his mind.”

Photo by Engin Akyurt on Pexels.com

They considered him to be a raving lunatic incapable of conducting his own affairs. Why else would they go to take charge of him? Furthermore, they were not alone in this opinion. Mark’s account continues:

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” (Mark 3:22–30)

In brief, Jesus’ family thought he was insane and the teachers of the law from Jerusalem thought he was demon possessed. The opinion of these teachers of the law may have had a good deal of influence on James. It is worth noting that these would be the same religious leaders from Judea that according to John were trying to kill Jesus. See John 7:1. This can hardly be described as a resounding endorsement of Jesus’ ministry!

But then Jesus has always been a controversial figure throughout history. The great twentieth-century thinker C.S. Lewis, in his defense of orthodox Christian faith, makes this insightful statement regarding Jesus:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (MacMillan, 1952), pp. 55–56.)

His enduring love stretches beyond the horizon — photo by David Kitz

There is no convenient middle ground concerning Jesus. It has always been thus, even for the members of his immediate family. Yet there is one thing abundantly clear from Mark’s account: this is a deeply divided family. Mary may have believed in the messianic mission of her firstborn son, but it is apparent her other sons do not. They believe Jesus is out of his mind, and, bringing their mother with them, they set off to rescue their errant half-brother from his delusion.

In his discussion with the teachers of the law, Jesus refutes the idea that he is demon possessed with the argument that a kingdom or a house divided against itself cannot stand. There is a good deal of irony at play here since his own family is divided, and now he finds himself on the outs with most of them. Do they too believe he is demon possessed? Quite possibly, though we are not explicitly told.

Mark continues his account of these events:

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31–35)

Obedient Christian believers—Christ’s followers—draw a great deal of warmth and comfort from this passage. They are identified as brothers, sisters, and mothers to their Lord. What amazing words of love and embrace!

Photo by Arina Krasnikova on Pexels.com

But there is a stinging flip side to this affirmation. The members ofJesus’ own family stand excluded. Both literally and figuratively they are on the outside—on the outside of the home looking in. For them this is a backhanded rebuke of the highest magnitude. They are not deemed to be part of this happy family of followers—Jesus’ spiritual family—but neither do they want to be.

What appears to follow (though Mark provides us with no further details) is a classic standoff. We are not even told if Jesus agrees to go out and meet with his biological family; presumably he did not. If he knew their intentions, it may have been wise to not meet with them. The brothers might try to take him by force.

Were harsh words exchanged? Perhaps.

Did Jesus try to reassure them that he was sound of mind? Maybe. The silence of scripture on this matter allows some room for conjecture.

But ultimately from the three gospel accounts that record this incident, (Matthew 12:46–50, Mark 3:31–35, Luke 8:19–21) we can only reach one conclusion: Jesus continues on with his ministry, and his brothers returned to Nazareth without their wayward older sibling. They may consider him insane, but Jesus is not about to change course and yield to their will. He is doing his Father’s will. He is going about his Father’s business.

The rift between them has widened immeasurably. Can it ever be bridged? In effect Jesus has disowned them, and they in turn have abandoned him to his own will. The gulf between them is enormous.

In the days ahead the implications of this rift will play out in stunning ways.

 

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.

 

The Family Rift

08 Sunday Mar 2026

Posted by in Books by David Kitz

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 4

One can easily assume that Jesus, and by extension James, grew up in an idyllic family. If God selected Mary to be the mother of God’s own son, then surely, she was a perfect mother—the perfect mother. Joseph too must have been a man of flawless character, a hardworking, salt-of-the-earth fellow with impeccable morals. Growing up in such a home in small-town Nazareth must have been like having your own corner of heaven in this rough and tumble, sin-stained world.

But in this fallen world there is no perfect home and no absolutely perfect family. The taint of sin and the machinations of our ancient foe are everywhere. If it were not so, this world would not need a Savior. It should come as no surprise then, that all was not always sweetness and light in the household of Joseph and Mary. God frequently uses deeply flawed characters.

Luke concludes his account of Jesus’ boyhood temple experience with this summary statement:

Then he [Jesus] went down to Nazareth with them [Mary and Joseph] and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:51–52)

There is no indication of any family tension in this statement. On the contrary, the opposite appears to be true, and undoubtedly there were many happy moments of family harmony in this home. But when we examine other passages from the four gospel accounts of Jesus life, we can see that below the surface, trouble was brewing within this holy family. How soon family tension and rivalry reared its ugly head remains open to debate, but as we will soon see, it certainly was present during the time of Jesus public ministry.

Sibling rivalry is common among multi-child families. Was there rivalry between Jesus and his brothers as they grew up? Most likely there was. In fact, the very notion of living with a morally perfect, intellectually superior older brother should send shivers of dread through any thinking child. How could any sibling possibly measure up to this older brother’s exemplary standard? Here we have the textbook recipe for childhood frustration and sibling resentment.

If Jesus reached an epiphany moment in the temple at age twelve, it is reasonable to surmise that James may have had a similar epiphany in his early teens—a moment when he realized that Jesus was profoundly different, and that unlike himself, Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

The Boy Jesus in the Temple Courts

This epiphany may have occurred in a rather ordinary way. Teens his own age may have told James that his brother was the son of another man. Small-town communities have a collective memory. Mary’s initial unexpected pregnancy likely had tongues wagging. Rumors spread and gain currency with time, and in due time that rumor may have circled round to James.

James did not conclude that Jesus was the Son of God. A more natural explanation was much more logical. It is reasonable to assume that in his judgment, James came to believe that Jesus was the product of his mother’s rather unfortunate union with another man. Scripture bears witness to this verdict.

The following passage from John’s Gospel provides us with ample evidence of the tension that was rife within this family:

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”

Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.”

Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders. (John 7:1–13)

John’s observation on the brothers’ advice is very enlightening. He states, “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” There was clearly a bitter tension here that the brothers’ words alone do not convey. The brothers that this passage refers to are of course James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (Jude), as identified in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

And what precisely did the brothers not believe about Jesus? From the context, it appears that they did believe in his miraculous powers; in fact, they challenged him to reveal himself to the world through them. The phrase that is translated “the works you do” in the New International Version is more freely translated “see your miracles” in the New Living Translation. So, it is clear that the brothers had heard the stories of Jesus’ miracles or had witnessed them personally. Now they want Jesus to reveal himself to the world. They say, “Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

The brothers’ unbelief went deeper than a surface acknowledgement of the miracles. They doubted his deity—his divine origin. To his brothers, Jesus was too familiar. He was Mary’s boy—their half-brother—nothing more. But beyond that, he was their half-brother, the bastard son, putting on airs, rising above his rightful station in life. Furthermore, they were jealous of his rising popularity as a person of considerable renown.

Here we see the truth of what John said in the introduction to his Gospel, “He [Jesus] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:10–11).

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Jesus was rejected by his own—by his own brothers. They did not recognize him as God or the Son of God.

As one of the three disciples within Jesus’ inner circle, John was likely a witness to this conversation between Jesus and his brothers. Now in his Gospel, John bears witness to the brother’s unbelief.

But John had another domestic source that may have enlightened him more fully on the brothers’ lack of faith. John was responsible for looking after Mary after Jesus’ death. Surely the issue of the brothers’ early rejection of the messianic Jesus was a topic of discussion at some point.

Undoubtedly, at times Mary would also have encountered the disparaging perspective that her younger sons had toward Jesus. Jesus did not easily fit into a world or even a family that prefers conformity. Those who are struggling to raise exceptional children may find some comfort in that. Often gifted children are misunderstood or not well-received socially by peers and even by adults.

Jesus sees through his brothers’ advice to their deep-seated antagonism, and consequently he responds harshly to their challenge to reveal himself to the world. But with his response, he provides a clue as to why they rejected him. “Jesus told them, ‘My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.’”

For the brothers, when they consider Jesus’ claims to deity, they see an elephant in the room—perhaps several of them. The largest problem may well be the death of their father Joseph. How could this healer of the sick, this miracle worker, this man who raised the dead to life on more than one occasion do nothing to prevent the death of their father?

The unspoken thought might go something like this, “So Jesus, you’re the Son of God! Well, why then did you let Dad die? Why didn’t you do something? Why do you go about healing perfect strangers, while your own family suffers?”

But how does Jesus respond? “Jesus told them, ‘My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.’”

That may be a fine answer for the public, but it does little to soothe an aching heart or comfort the doubting soul of a family member. Why did Jesus raise to life the son of the widow at Nain (Luke 7:11-17), but leave Joseph, his earthly father, to die?

Variations on this question confront us often. Why is one child spared in a school shooting, while others are gunned down by a madman? Why does one woman make a miraculous recovery from terminal cancer, while an equally worthy woman suffers and dies, leaving a grief-stricken family? These questions have no easy answer. None exists on this side of eternity.

Death stalks all of us, and ultimately death always claims its prize. A better question might be, “Why now? Why did this person die now? Why not later?”

“Jesus told them, ‘My time is not yet here; for you any time will do.’”

Photo by brenoanp on Pexels.com

There was no miracle for their father Joseph. Jesus’ time had not yet come. His time for doing miracles had not yet arrived. Earlier in John’s Gospel, Jesus made a similar pronouncement when Mary asked him to intervene when the wine ran out at the wedding in Cana. “‘Woman, why do you involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My time has not yet come.’” (John 2:4)

But despite this objection, Jesus proceeded to perform his first miracle as he turned water into wine. The question of timing remains. Why work a miracle in one situation, but not in another? Why heal one invalid at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-16), but leave many others to suffer?

Clearly, Jesus was working according to a different timetable. In the present, we tend to think as Jesus’ brothers thought. We could always use a miracle or two. For us, when it comes to receiving a miracle, “any time will do.”

At this point in John’s account, there is clearly a great gulf separating these brothers and Jesus, and Jesus does nothing to bridge it. On the contrary he expands the gulf and elaborates on it. Speaking of his brothers, he says, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”

Implied in these remarks is the idea that the brothers are worldly and complicit with the evil of the world. Jesus sees himself as being on a great redemptive mission—a mission set in motion by his heavenly Father. It is a mission of impeccable, precise timing. He will not be distracted, bated or thrown off course by his brothers. For Jesus timing was everything. He will not be hurried into doing miracles or into revealing himself to the world. He will not be hurried to his death in Jerusalem. He is not a showman, a performer or an entertainer for the crowds.

He is a redeemer on a mission—a sacrificial lamb, the Passover lamb—saving himself for slaughter at the right time, the perfect time.

Photo by Kat Smith on Pexels.com

There is a double meaning in the phrase, “My time is not yet here.” For the brothers it meant the time for Jesus to reveal himself to the world through his miraculous powers, but for Jesus it also meant the time for his approaching death. The Jewish leaders were already plotting his demise. He did not want to speed that day by following his brothers’ ill-conceived ideas.

Jesus’ brothers understood none of this. They did not believe in him. James did not believe in him. The brothers proceeded to the feast while Jesus stayed for a time in Galilee. The rift between them is clearly defined. They did not travel together. They are walking separate paths. Jesus has his followers, his disciples, but his brothers are not numbered among them.

Unbelief and a sharp division in the family are not what we would expect from the union of Mary and Joseph. We would like to believe that Mary and Joseph did a stellar job in raising their children; after all they were selected by God for this specific assignment.

But let’s be clear: this was no easy task.

Many believe that Mary and Joseph disclosed to Jesus in an age-appropriate manner the divine nature of his origin and the broad outlines of his calling. Surely this was a part of their parental responsibility, a responsibility given to them by God.

Joseph certainly would have trained Jesus in the skills of carpentry. The family would have been active in the local synagogue. A synagogue education would include learning to read and write, but also committing reams of scripture to memory.

This would all be foundational to Jesus’ later ministry.

But the parental task of educating Jesus in his messianic calling would be far easier if there were no younger brothers around. Singling out a child for special status or treatment instantly creates family tension. Anyone named Joseph should know this well.

The brothers’ rejection of Jesus bears a striking resemblance to another example of sibling rivalry and rejection recorded in the last chapters of Genesis. When he was a teenager, the patriarch Joseph (Joseph of the multicolored coat) was rejected by his brothers. But this was no mild snub. Joseph’s brothers initially wanted to kill him, but they settled for selling him to Ishmaelites, who later sold him into slavery in Egypt. See Genesis chapters 37-50.

Photo by gracefiber.com

The New Testament Joseph surely must have had his Old Testament namesake in mind as he raised his own family. The parallels run deep. Many biblical scholars have noted that there is a striking similarity between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph, the patriarch, whose story is recorded in Genesis.

Here in brief are some of these parallels:

• Both claimed a special relationship with their father—Jesus’ father being God, while Joseph’s father was Jacob, who is also called Israel, the father of the nation. (Luke 2:49, Genesis 37:3–4)

• Both had a revelation of their divine calling at or near puberty. (Luke 2:41–52; Genesis 37:5–11)

• Both were rejected by their brothers. (John 1:11 and John 7:5; Genesis 37:12–32)

• Though both were tempted, they lived a sinless or exemplary life. (Matthew 4:11 and 2 Corinthians 5:21; Genesis 39:6–15)

• Both were wrongly accused, arrested and suffered though innocent. (Mark 14:43–15:41; Genesis 39:19–21)

• After suffering both were exalted to rule. (Philippians 2:9–11; Genesis 41:41–44)

• Both brought deliverance or salvation—Joseph for Egypt, Jesus for the world. (John 3:16; Genesis 50:20)

• Both forgave those who wronged them and were reconciled with their brothers. (Luke 23:34; Genesis 50:21)

If the New Testament Joseph showed any special favoritism to Jesus, he risked repeating the mistakes of Jacob, the father of the Joseph of the Old Testament. In that instance, special treatment led directly to fierce resentment and forced exile from the family.

This may have left Joseph in a conundrum. Too much disclosure of Jesus’ divine origin and messianic calling put him at risk of resentment and rejection by his siblings. No disclosure at all could be interpreted as a failure of parental responsibility.

Even the meaning of term Messiah is problematic. We understand this word quite differently now. How did Joseph and Mary see their son’s calling? They were looking at him through first century Jewish eyes, and they likely had expectations and perspectives that were quite different from ours today.

The desire for a Jewish Messiah to arise from among the people was pervasive during this historic period. The felt need was for a strong leader to arise and rally the people, so they could overthrow the oppressive pagan rule of Rome by means of a bloody insurrection. From the Jewish perspective the need and the vision were clear. This Messiah—the anointed one—would re-establish the throne of David and with a rod of iron he would rule over Israel and the surrounding nations in righteousness and justice.

The firstborn son in Joseph’s household had the right lineage. He was a son of David and furthermore, at his birth his messianic call was confirmed by the words of angels, prophets and magi. Surely at the right time Joseph would or should instill into Jesus the imperatives of his messianic call. Did Joseph do this?

On this topic the scriptures are maddeningly silent. Joseph dies at some point between Jesus’ boyhood visit to the temple and the emergence of his public ministry. When or how is unknown.

If Joseph and Mary followed the wisdom of the day, they would have imparted an incorrect messianic vision. Several would-be messiahs rose up in rebellion against Rome before and after Jesus’ crucifixion. Each rebellion was brutally crushed until the Jews were finally expelled from Jerusalem and their homeland in 135 AD.

The rebellion that Jesus would eventually lead was a soft power rebellion that rejected bloodshed and the use of force. See John 18:36. But ultimately the kingdom of God, which Jesus founded, would triumph over the empire of Rome. Down through the ages to the present day, his followers have submitted to his rule within a kingdom that never ends.

In matters affecting family dynamics, timing is crucial. In the right time, the dreams of the Joseph of the technicolor coat would come true. His parents and brothers would bow down to him. Joseph, the son of Israel, became the ruler of all of Egypt.

Picture by Gracefiber.com

In the right time, Jesus’ brothers beginning with James would recognize him as the Son of God and the Savior of the world. They too would bow before him as king. All would come in the right time, including reconciliation.

Prior to the disagreement with his unbelieving brothers cited in John 7, Jesus was in conflict with the Jewish leadership in Judea. This too was a conflict over timing. He had dared to heal a man on the Sabbath. See John 5. In his discourse with the Jewish leadership, Jesus gives us a glimpse into his modus operandi:

Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (John 5:19–23)

These words leave no doubt about whose agenda Jesus is following. He is going about his Father’s business. The twelve-year-old has grown up. Joseph is dead. The thirty-year-old Jesus is moving according to the dictates of his heavenly Father. He does “only what he sees his Father doing.”

Without doubt, what Jesus does, he does in his Father’s perfect timing. As we shall see, pursuing his messianic call would bring him into direct conflict with his brother—James the unbeliever.

Did Joseph and Mary fail in their parental mandate because we see evidence of serious conflict and unbelief within their family? If these saintly parents were unable to raise their family in harmony and faith, what hope do Christian parents have today?

Concluding that Joseph and Mary somehow failed in their parental mandate is unwarranted. Right actions stemming from right motives are often misunderstood, particularly within the dynamics of a large and growing family. Children, particularly adult children, are accountable for their own attitudes and actions.

In some respects, the Genesis account of Joseph’s life serves as a template for what unfolds 1,500 years later in the family of Mary and Joseph. Division and conflict bubble to the surface, but ultimately all is resolved through salvation and forgiveness.

Interestingly, the Book of Genesis ends with this statement:

So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten. And after they embalmed him, he was placed in a coffin in Egypt. (Genesis 50:26)

Four hundred years later, after a great deliverance, the stone box containing Joseph’s bones was carried out of Egypt and into the land of Israel. There his bones found their ultimate resting place.

And Joseph’s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants. (Joshua 24:32)

Time photo of the James Ossuary

Two thousand years after the death of the New Testament Joseph, we encounter another stone burial box. In the Hebrew language it bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

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.

 

It’s all about DNA

15 Sunday Feb 2026

Posted by in Books by David Kitz

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

James: the Lynchpin of Our Faith — Chapter 1

Have you ever wondered what your life would be like, if you grew up in a different family? I think we all have considered that thought. Maybe it occurred to you the first time you slept over at a friend’s house. You thought, what would it be like to grow up in this house, with this family? Would you be where you are today? Now stretch that thought a bit. What if you were born into a different nation, culture or religious tradition? Would you still be the same person? What would you be like, if you were raised by a low-caste family in southern India, or by Masai warriors in Kenya? We all know that our home and upbringing influence our adult life in a thousand different ways.

Photo by samer daboul on Pexels.com

Then there is the question of DNA. We also know that our genetic make-up impacts everything about us. Every cell and fiber in our body is programmed according to the genetic code inherited from our parents. That code determines more than just our eye colour and shoe size. It shapes facets of personality, disposition, and even subtleties such as our posture, the way we move, and the gestures we use. Of course the influences of nature and nurture, DNA, and upbringing were just as important in biblical times as they are today. We are who we are because of the complex interactions of heredity, family, and social influences. These same influences were at play in shaping the life of James

It is only natural that, following in this vein, the New Testament begins by highlighting heredity. The Gospel of Matthew starts with a recitation of the lineage of Jesus. Incidentally, since they were half-brothers by blood, this also would be the lineage of James. And to truly under stand James—to paint a portrait of him—we need to grasp the paramount role that his older brother played. With this purpose in mind, let’s examine Matthew’s account.

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother
was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
and Jesse the father of King David. (Matthew 1:1–5)

The gospel writer’s purpose here is to establish the quintessential Jewishness of Jesus. He does this in the most organic way possible, by linking him back to the father of the Jewish nation, Abraham. Matthew’s
gospel is written to a Jewish audience and so by doing this, Matthew is saying to his fellow Jews, “Look folks, Jesus, the Messiah is one of us. Just like you, he can trace back his bloodline right to Abraham. We have
a common heritage and here it is spelled out in black and white.” With the next portion of the genealogy Matthew takes this message a step further:

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers
at the time of the exile to Babylon. (Matthew 1:6b–11)

To the casual present-day reader, this list of names means next to nothing, but in Matthew’s time every educated Jewish boy or girl would recognize that this is the full pantheon of Jewish kings. Here are the great and not so great leaders of the Jewish nation—royal heroes and scoundrels all. By providing this list Matthew has just upped the ante. He is telling his Jewish readers, “Have a look at this. Jesus is a royal descendant from the line of David. He is no ordinary Jew. Surely, he is marked for a higher calling.”

Matthew continues:

After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,
and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Matthew 1:12–16)

Matthew has laid out this catalog of patriarchs to establish Jesus’ provenance. This is his royal heritage. To his Jewish audience he is saying, “We all know that the coming Messiah—the promised one—is a descendant of David. Well, here is Jesus’ family tree. He springs from the right stock. He’s got the bona fides.”

But did you notice that surprising little twist at the end? We are introduced to “Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah” (Matthew 1:16). That’s right! After that great, long, monotonous list of was the-father-of’s, there’s an abrupt change. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. The genetic link breaks down. “Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah” (Matthew 1:16).

Matthew goes on to explain:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about:
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph,
but before they came together, she was found to be
pregnant through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18)

 

It’s as though God is saying through Matthew that royal heritage is significant, but it isn’t good enough; the best human DNA isn’t good enough. It’s only human after all. For the Messiah we must look to a higher source—a divine source. “But before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).

God intervened. God put some skin in the game. If the redemption of mankind was a rescue mission, then the Maker of the universe just got seriously committed. He inserted Himself into the human genome.

Divine DNA—Holy Spirit DNA. Think of that for a minute. Divine DNA, the very nature of God, is linked with human DNA in theperson of Jesus. “She [Mary] was found to be pregnant through the HolySpirit” (Matthew 1:18). If you find it difficult to wrap your mind aroundthat statement, you are not alone. Joseph had some difficulty with it too. In fact, he needed a bit of angelic dream therapy to convince him of the heavenly origin this pregnancy. Let’s return to Matthew’s account:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about:
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph,
but before they came together, she was found to be
pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her
husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want
to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to
divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son
of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your
wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy
Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus, because he will save his people
from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said
through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and
give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”
(which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of
the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home
as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage
until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the
name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18–24)

In a normal human pregnancy, the father’s sperm, containing his DNA, unites with the mother’s DNA in the egg to form a new child (zygote). In Mary’s case, the Holy Spirit supplied the required male DNA, or its spiritual equivalent, to set the growth of the zygote (child) into motion.

Theologians have pondered and debated the topic of the virgin birth from the very foundation of the Christian faith. For unbelievers it is a huge stumbling block. How could this come about? It should not surprise us that those most intimately involved with this miracle—Mary and Joseph— would also have doubts and questions. They needed divine assurance and convincing proofs, even as many believers do today.

It’s easy for us who live in a postmodern world to assume that the ancients of biblical times lived in an age of faith where everyone was quick to believe in miracles and the supernatural intervention of God. But a careful reading of the New Testament tells quite a different story. Many struggled with their faith. There are skeptics who demand proof in every age. But how glorious it is when the skeptic has his questions answered, his doubts stripped away, and he finds himself confronted by the living God. This was the case with both Mary and Joseph.

In Luke’s gospel account, Mary’s encounter with the angel Gabriel quite logically sets off some serious questions and doubts. We are told that “Mary was greatly troubled at his [Gabriel’s] words and wondered
what kind of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29).

Mary had just heard that she “is highly favoured,” and “the Lord is with her.” If she found that angelic greeting disturbing, or as some translations say “confusing,” I am sure she found Gabriel’s announcement
which followed even more troubling.

“Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with
God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you
are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called
the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him
the throne of his father David, and he will reign over
Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never
end.”
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since
I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:30b–34)

 

Evangelho — Lc 1, 26-38 AI Modified

Mary’s uncertainty is evident through her question. This girl without doubt knew about the birds and the bees and the normal ways and means that produce a pregnancy. Her question flowed logically from everything she knew about human reproduction. Would this promised-child come from her union with Joseph? That would certainly be the natural, predictable course of events, since she was already pledged in marriage to him. Can you imagine her surprise when she heard the angel’s response to her question?

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow
you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son
of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a
child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable
to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from
God will ever fail.” (Luke 1:35-37)

Mary is unequivocally told that God would be the father of this child, “so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” This echoes what she had been told before she questioned Gabriel. Mary was told, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.” Undoubtedly, it takes time and repetition to fully grasp the implications of such statements. In Mary’s case it would take a lifetime. After all, this angelic announcement confounded her Jewish theology. How could God take on human flesh? It defied logic and the norms of human experience. While a Jewish Messiah was hoped for, even expected, who knew that it would come this way? From her own body no less?

To reassure Mary, Gabriel adds the news about Elizabeth’s pregnancy. This aged, barren woman was the last woman among her relatives that Mary would expect to be pregnant. If the miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth was possible, then perhaps this divine conception via a virgin was possible too.

Mary’s response indicates the spark of faith was alive within her.

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her. (Luke 1:38)

Following this angelic visitation, Mary did not remain in her hometown, Nazareth, for long. Luke goes on to tell us that she went down to Zachariah and Elizabeth’s house in Judea. We are not told why she made this journey, but Mary probably hoped for confirmation that Gabriel’s words were true—that Elizabeth was indeed pregnant. If it was confirmation that she sought, it came upon her arrival.

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:41–45)

Elizabeth’s words confirm that the spark of faith in Mary was sufficient. She had believed the angel’s words—the Lord’s promise to her via Gabriel—and as a result conception had become reality. As the gospel writer John puts it, “The Word [Jesus] became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). In the coming days, God would become flesh within the womb of Mary.

Later, we see that this concept of power residing in spoken words becomes a prominent theme in Jesus’ ministry. When mixed with faith, the spoken word releases transformation, healing and the miraculous. Jesus speaks to the wind and the waves, and they obeyed him. With a simple spoken word, he heals the sick, restores sight to the blind and casts out demons. Time and again we hear him say, “Your faith has healed you,” as the afflicted walk away in perfect health (Matthew 9:22, Mark5:34, Mark 10:52, Luke 8:48, Luke18:42).

It is this potent mix of the spoken word and faith in the heart of the listener that brings forth amazing transformation. As it was at conception, so it continued through Jesus’ life—words and faith formed an astonishing blend. His words brought life; God’s word brings life.

Later we will see that James, the brother of Jesus, fully grasps this concept of power residing in the spoken word. It is a major theme in his writing, and he hammers it home like no other New Testament writer.

Is it legitimate to speak of divine DNA linking with human DNA to produce the God/man Jesus Christ? Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA is a physical molecular structure after all, but the Bible asserts that God is a spirit. How could God, who is a spirit, have a physical component or discernible material structure?

If this question seems baffling, then consider this. For the last 50 years nuclear physicists have been trying to find the Higgs boson or ‘God particle’—that elusive element that gives everything in the universe its mass. After spending billions of dollars on the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, and then creating millions of subatomic particle collisions, scientists have concluded that what we call nothing (totally empty space) is actually something. The God particle discovery announced on July 4th, 2012, is the theological equivalent of saying that God has substance.

For more than two thousand years, Christians have been arguing that God has substance. He took on substance at the conception of Christ in Mary’s womb. In an instant God took on human form. Godly characteristics found their full expression in a human form—first as a zygote, then a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, and a man named Jesus. At every stage of development, he was both God and man. The essence and nature of God took on substance—a material form—and became incarnate. God was no longer only a spirit. He had a physical structure—a human form through which the world could see the express nature and character of God. As a human father expresses his nature and characteristics genetically through his offspring, so too the heavenly Father’s spiritual code was written into every molecule and fiber of Jesus’ being.

Furthermore, it bears noting that this God/man, Jesus Christ, was not a demigod in the Greek and Roman religious tradition of that period. He was simultaneously fully God and fully man, according to sound biblical interpretation and the earliest Christian conventions.

From a biblical perspective the divine nature of the child Jesus is undeniable. Jesus’ biological father was God, as clearly stated in Matthew and Luke’s gospel accounts. But why does Matthew bother listing his earthly, adoptive father’s genealogy if, as stated, Joseph had no DNA in the mix?

The answer appears to be threefold. First, nurture matters. An all-knowing God recognized that Joseph would act as an ideal father to the boy Jesus. Joseph would raise Jesus in the faith. He would love and discipline him in a godly way and educate him in what it means to be a man in Jewish society. Everything we know about child rearing points to the importance of the father figure in the home. This is especially true in the case of boys. Joseph played a very significant role in the life of Jesus. But Joseph played a crucial role in the life of James—crucial because he was the biological father of James. As the lives of these two boys develop, we will see the pivotal role this difference in DNA played.

Secondly, family lineage matters. In Western society we downplay the importance of family heritage. Rugged individualism is highly valued. But even today in Middle Eastern culture, a person’s family name and lineage are of great importance, even paramount. An individual’s life is always viewed in the context of family and family heritage. This is why such a high premium is placed on family honor. It is also why blood feuds go on for multiple generations, as families are locked into past modes of behavior and interaction. To fully introduce a person within such a society, one needs to provide their lineage. Matthew does just that by delineating Jesus’ heritage at the outset of his gospel account.

Finally, royalty matters. The long-awaited, promised Messiah was to come from the royal line of David. This was common knowledge to all Jews of this period. Hence, Matthew begins his gospel with these words: “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). Similarly, in Joseph’s dream, recorded inthe first chapter, the angel does not address Joseph as the son of Jacob, Jacob being his immediate father, but rather as, “Joseph, son of David” (Matthew 1:29). Why jump fourteen generations back? Simply put, it’s because royalty matters.

Because royalty matters, it is the opening theme of Matthew’s first gospel narrative:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the
time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem
and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?
We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed,
and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called to
gether all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the
law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.
“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what
the prophet has written:

“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd
my people Israel.’” (Matthew 2:1–6)

Because royalty matters, jealous King Herod had all the male infants under the age of two put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. Clearly this newborn king had the endorsement of heaven, since the appearance of a star marked his birth. Furthermore, the scriptures predicted his birth. The crafty Herod immediately sensed the threat to his dynastic rule.

In Luke’s gospel account we see that being a descendant of royalty mattered to Joseph. Why else would a resident of Nazareth make the long journey to Bethlehem for the sake of an imperial census, especially since his wife was in the final stages of pregnancy?

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. (Luke 2:4–5)

As you can see, it’s all about DNA—royal DNA—messianic DNA. It’s all about being from the right family, the right clan, and being born in the right place at the right time as a fulfillment of ancient biblical prophecy. It’s about divine DNA or its spiritual equivalent touching the right human DNA to trigger the birth of the Messiah—the God-man who came into the world.

But the DNA that the Holy Spirit touched to trigger conception was Mary’s DNA. Luke provides us with a different genealogical list than Matthew as he traces back Jesus’ ancestors all the way to Adam and finally to God. (See Luke 3:23–38.) He does this because unlike Matthew, who is writing to a Jewish audience, Luke is writing to a Gentile audience. Luke wants his readers to understand that this Jewish Messiah is not just the Savior for Jews, but for all humankind. Of course, Luke goes on to describe the stable birth, the shepherd’s visit and the heavenly, angelic light and sound show that heralded the nativity of the Son of God.

Many Bible scholars believe that the differences between Matthew’s genealogical list and Luke’s list are due to Luke following Mary’s line of descent, while Matthew follows Joseph’s line. What is abundantly clear from both lists is that we are tracing the royal line of David, since at some point the lists merge and are identical.

Implicitly what both authors are saying by providing these lineages is that Jesus is the rightful heir of the Jewish throne. He is the long-awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy. His birth and arrival on the
scene mark a turning point in world history. God has stepped into human flesh and has come to live among us.

The gospel writer John puts it this way:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

James was born into this family, with this heritage, with this more-than-preeminent older brother. Talk about being overshadowed by an older brother! Like no one else on this planet James had the blessing, the challenge, and the curse of being overshadowed by the Almighty. And in human form, this Almighty was none other than his living, breathing, flesh, and blood older brother.

 

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.

She Placed Him in a Manger

24 Wednesday Dec 2025

Posted by in Advent

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s quote and prayer from
“Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer

 Today’s Reading: Psalm 25:16-22

Listen to today’s reading by Jonathan Dent:

Lord Jesus,
whose birth we celebrate,
help me to be open and transparent before you.
Take away all my sins.
My hope is in you.
Protect me from the attacks of the enemy.
Deliver me from all my troubles,
my gracious Savior.
Amen.

— — — —


The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree
that a census should be taken
of the entire Roman world. 
(This was the first census that took place
while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 
And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up
from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea,
to Bethlehem the town of David,
because he belonged to the house and line of David.
He went there to register with Mary,
who was pledged to be married to him
and was expecting a child.
While they were there,
the time came for the baby to be born,
and she gave birth to her firstborn,
a son.
She wrapped him in cloths
and placed him in a manger,
because there was no guest room available for them.
(Luke 2:1-7 NIV)*

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

bgbg_v4.3_1501818
* NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, COPYRIGHT ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 BY BIBLICA

Pray for enduring peace in Israel and Gaza,
and continue to pray for peace to return to Ukraine and Russia!

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.

Also available from David Kitz

American readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a King.

Canadian readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a King directly from the author.

They Will Call Him Immanuel

23 Tuesday Dec 2025

Posted by in Advent

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s quote and prayer from
“Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer

 Today’s Reading: Psalm 25:8-15

Listen to today’s reading by Jonathan Dent:


LORD God,
in humility I come before you.
I need your help
and guidance every moment of the day.
Teach me your ways in every circumstance I face.
Lord Jesus,
you are my Good Shepherd.
Amen.

— — — —


Joseph Obeys the Angel’s Command

All this took place to fulfill
what the Lord had said through the prophet: 
“The virgin will conceive
and give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel”
 (which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up,
he did what the angel of the Lord
had commanded him
and took Mary home as his wife. 
But he did not consummate their marriage
until she gave birth to a son.
And he gave him the name Jesus.
(Matthew 1:22-25 NIV)*

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

bgbg_v4.3_1501818
* NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, COPYRIGHT ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 BY BIBLICA

Pray for enduring peace in Israel and Gaza,
and continue to pray for peace to return to Ukraine and Russia!

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.

Also available from David Kitz

American readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a King.

Canadian readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a Kingdirectly from the author.

Give Him the Name Jesus

22 Monday Dec 2025

Posted by in Advent

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s quote and prayer from
“Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer

 Today’s Reading: Psalm 25:1-7

Listen to today’s reading by Jonathan Dent:


LORD God,
this is my prayer:
Show me your ways,
LORD, teach me your paths.
Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long (Psalm 25:4-5).
I pray in Jesus’ name.
Amen.

— — — —


An Angel Appears to Joseph

This is how the birth of Jesus
the Messiah came about:
His mother Mary was pledged
to be married to Joseph,
but before they came together,
she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law,
and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace,
he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this,
an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream
and said,
“Joseph son of David,
do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife,
because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
She will give birth to a son,
and you are to give him the name Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins.”
(Matthew 1:18-21 NIV)*

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

bgbg_v4.3_1501818
* NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, COPYRIGHT ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 BY BIBLICA

Pray for enduring peace in Israel and Gaza,
and continue to pray for peace to return to Ukraine and Russia!

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.

Also available from David Kitz

Holy Week as seen from a soldier’s perspective

American readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a King.

Canadian readers click this link to purchase The Soldier Who Killed a King directly from the author.

It Was to Save Lives

23 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Psalm 3, Psalms

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s quote and prayer from
“Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer”
Today’s Reading: Psalm 3

LORD God,
save me from all my troubles.
I put my confidence in you.
You reach down to me
at the low points in my life.
You have never abandoned me.
Jesus,
I give you thanks in advance
for your help.
Amen.

— — — —

Then Joseph said to his brothers,
“Come close to me.”
When they had done so, he said,
“I am your brother Joseph,
the one you sold into Egypt!
And now, do not be distressed
and do not be angry
with yourselves for selling me here,
because it was to save lives
that God sent me ahead of you.
For two years now
there has been famine in the land,
and for the next five years
there will be no plowing and reaping.
But God sent me ahead of you
to preserve for you a remnant on earth
and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
(Genesis 45:4-7 NIV)*

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

bgbg_v4.3_1501818
* NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, COPYRIGHT ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 BY BIBLICA

Thank God for peace in Israel and Gaza,
and continue to pray for peace to return to Ukraine and Russia!

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.

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.

God Intended It for Good

06 Tuesday May 2025

Posted by in Psalms

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Today’s quote and prayer from
“Psalms 365: Develop a Life of Worship and Prayer”
by David Kitz.

 Reading: Psalm 105:16-22

Father God,
when bad news comes
give me a thankful heart
and a right perspective.
Your ways are higher than mine.
You know the end
before the beginning starts.
I choose to trust you,
Lord Jesus. 
Amen.

— — —

 His brothers then came
and threw themselves down before him [Joseph].
“We are your slaves,” they said.

But Joseph said to them,
“Don’t be afraid.
Am I in the place of God?
You intended to harm me, 
but God intended it for good 
to accomplish what is now being done,
the saving of many lives.
So then, don’t be afraid.
I will provide for you and your children.”
And he reassured them
and spoke kindly to them.
(Genesis 50:18-21 NIV)*

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

bgbg_v4.3_1501818
* NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, COPYRIGHT ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 BY BIBLICA

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.

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