Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Was James Writing His Epistle For A Trial of Paul
Introduction
Scholars now recognize the Epistle of James was intended for a specific purpose: a trial. The epistle begins by explaining seating rules for a trial at a "synagogue," not at a church service.
However, there is more to support this trial theory than what the scholars have acknowledged. When one looks at James' message, one has the unmistakable sense that James is dismantling the doctrines taught by Paul. This is particularly true in James' discussion of faith and works. James explains (Gen. 15:6) in a diametrically different way than Paul explained the very same verse. James tells the story of Abraham in a manner at total odds with Paul's account. James leads the reader to a diametrically opposite doctrine of justification by works and "not faith [that is] alone." There is also no mistaking that James defines salvation as crucially relying on faith and works, not one without the other. He, in fact, mocks the idea that salvation depends upon doctrines you only mentally agree with. If mental belief alone were the true salvation formula, he says demons would be saved. The demons know and believe the truths about God, but they do not act upon them by pursuing God.
Finally, when you look through all a judicial assembly of the church, and that the rich and poor individuals are both members of the believing community who are involved in a dispute to be adjudicated. 1
- Stulac, James (1993), supra, rather than a worship service." (Stulac: 91.) He notes there is a subsequent reference to judges and courts. ((Jas. 2:4), 2:6). Second, it rather neatly resolves the questions some have had about this illustration in a worship setting. Why would Christians coming to worship need to be told where to stand or sit?...
Why would some stand and others be seated?
In Ward's judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might well be unfamiliar to the participants, and clothing might be a factor that would unfairly impress the judges. (Stulac: 91.)
Nor can we overlook that this proceeding was to take place in a synagogue. In (Jas. 2:2-4), James uses the Greek word synagoge for this meeting even though in other places in the same letter (in 5:14) he refers to Christ's church as an ecclesia. The word ecclesia was typically used to mean church, as distinct from meetings at synagoge. Also, incongruously, this word synagogue is only used in the New Testament for a church-meeting in (Jas. 2:2-4). James intends it to be a particular gathering place for Christians. James' context makes it clear as to this synagoge, there is "Christian ownership of and authority over this assembly." (Stulac: 91.)
Thus, when we put these two facts together, we can deduce James was writing his letter in the context of an upcoming gathering at a Christian-controlled synagogue to conduct a trial. The event would involve a large crowd. Some would stand and some would sit. This is completely consistent with the idea of a synagogue at Ephesus at which Paul taught for three months. (Acts 19:8). It fits the story of the synagogue at Ephesus from which Paul felt compelled to leave as recorded in Acts 19:9. It fits the place where Paul put
- Stulac cites R.B. Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly: (Jas. 2:2-4)," Harvard Theological Review etseq.) James' Epistle appears to have been written for a trial of Paul. It appears it was for the trial at Ephesus which Jesus alludes to in (Rev. 2:2).
James Is the Head Bishop of the Church
Why would James be giving an evaluation of Paul's teachings for purpose of a trial? Because James was the head of the church at that time. Paul indirectly alludes to this in (Gal. 2:9:)
James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars... (ASVj.
Cephas was the Aramaic version of Peter's name. Thus, Paul says the main supports (pillars) in Jerusalem appeared to be James, Peter, and John.
Second, we find in Acts that James takes the position of the final decision-maker over and above the apostles on doctrinal issues. In Acts 15:6, the "apostles and elders were gathered together to consider" the issue whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. After Paul and Peter speak, James gets up in Acts 15:19 and says "I judge" (Young's Literal). James then spells out exactly what is to be done and all the particulars. A letter is to be written and several specific requirements are to be demanded. Robertson's Word Pictures explains James uses an expression of krino Eusebius is regarded as a conservative early Church historian, having at one time himself been bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.
Eusebius agrees James was the initial leader of the church after Jesus' resurrection.
James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem
had been entrusted by the apostles. [Ecclesiastical History, Chapter XXIII.)
What Eusebius says, we see occurring in Acts ch. 15.
Hegesippus (c. 120?), who lived immediately after the apostles in
Palestine, had written a work divided into five books called Memoirs.
James, the brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of the
Church in conjunction with the apostles. Memoirs of Hegesippus
Book V (quoted by Eusebius).
- Roman Catholicism insists Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Yet, in (Matt. 13:55-56) when the people of Nazareth are amazed at Jesus, they ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Catholic authorities claim brother here should be understood as cousin. However, there is a word in Greek for cousin, cmepsios. When ancient writers spoke of James, they called him the brother of Jesus. In the same context, they identified Jesus' cousins, using the word cmepsios. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.4; see 2.23.4 and 3.20.1 (quoting Hegesippus).) Also, Matthew 1:24-25 states Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was bom. Once he knew of the pregnancy, Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had bom a son." This is the same as saying he had sexual relations with Mary only after she had a son. Furthermore, if Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have defrauded him. (1Cor. 7:5). Marriage in Judaism meant having sex with God's purposes in mind: to sustain a family line. (Ben Witherington, Woman in the Ministry' of Jesus head of the Church at Jerusalem.'
Jerome, the famous translator of the entire Bible into the Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.), devotes chapter two of his On Famous Men to a biography of James the Just. This is another name for the James who is talking in Acts chapter 15. Incidentally, as you read this quote, you will see Jerome is struggling on how this person can be "the brother of Jesus" and yet Mary was a perpetual virgin. By the 400s, the Roman Catholic church was now claiming Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Jerome gives a very odd explanation of how James could be the "brother of Jesus." Jerome suggests that James is the son of a sister of Mary. (This entire effort to make Mary a perpetual virgin is unscriptural and dangerous .) However, what is important is that Jerome cites Hegesippus for the fact that James was appointed the "bishop 4 of Jerusalem" by the "apostles." Jerome writes:
Likewise, Epiphanius, a bishop in the late 300s, writes of James
in his Panarion 29.3.4. He says that "James having been ordained
at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord....
We find as well that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son...." 5 To the same effect is Clement of Alexandria, who said the apostles did not pick from their own number "because the savior [already] had specifically honored them, but [instead] chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem." 6
"The Lord's brother was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the
Lord's time till our time has called him the Righteous."
Hegesippus (quoted in Eusebius E.H. 2.23)
- The concept of bishop in those days was a person whose principal function was to officiate and give a sermon at church gatherings (besides having authority over sibling churches in the same city). We learn this by the evidence of the Canons of Hippolytus
There is thus no question that James is the original head bishop of the church of Christ. He was appointed by the twelve apostles themselves. Acts eh. 15 gives witness to this, as well as all ancient historical sources. Thus, contrary to a popular misconception, Peter was not the bishop of the Christian church when it first began. Rather, as Acts chapter 15 depicts, in the early period Peter speaks but then everyone waits for James to decide the issue.
This is not to detract from Peter's important role either. Around 42 A.D., ten years into James' service as bishop over Jerusalem, Peter founded a church at Rome.
Peter was, in effect, its first bishop. (Every city in Christendom had its own bishop. Thus, Peter was de facto bishop at Rome even if some bishop lists omit his name.) By the same token, Peter's position at Rome ten years into James' primary position at Jerusalem does not detract from James' role.
While scholars did not initially appreciate Professor Eisenman's resurrecting these historical references about James outlined above, renown Christian scholars have now come to Eisenman's defense. They acknowledge it was James, not Peter, who actually first led the church from Jerusalem.
-
Joseph was in the Davidic line, not Mary. Thus, James was born through the seed of Joseph. Epiphanius says James was picked as bishop because he shared the Davidic blood-line. Consequently Joseph must be the father of James. Could Mary not be his physical birthmother? It is possible but not plausible. Either Joseph must have been previously married or Mary predeceases him. The latter alternative makes no sense. When Mary is still very much alive, the townspeople ask about Jesus and his brother James. In (Matt. 13:55-56), the townspeople of Nazareth ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Thus, the only other possibility where Mary was not James' mother is if Joseph had children prior to marrying Mary. Yet, the picture of the flight to Egypt mentions only Jesus as their son at that time. Consequently, James was born of Joseph and Mary. There is no sin in Mary having sex with her husband. (See Song of Solomon.) In Jewish custom, it was virtuous and appropriate to have children. It is wrong to imply married sex is sin.
-
Clement of Alexandria, Hypostases , Bk. 6, cited by Eusebius, The History of the Church right person to write a letter to Christians at Ephesus for a trial. As head bishop, he was the one to guide them on how to evaluate Paul's doctrines. James was the voice of what was orthodox in the church at that time.
Luther s Admission of James ' Direct Conflict with Paul
The primary proof that the Epistle of James is directed at Paul is the clarity of the contradiction over faith and works. On this point, the contradiction by James of Paul is pervasive, thorough, and unmistakable. James certainly claims salvation is not by faith alone. James says that one is justified by works. He gives several examples. He uses Paul's favorite example of Abraham. James quotes and re-analyzes (Gen. 15:6) to reach a contrary conclusion to that of Paul. No gloss can legitimately efface James' point. Paul clearly says the opposite. (Rom. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6 etseq.)
James begins his message on faith and works at (Jas. 2:14-25). (Jas. 2:17) reads: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James asks rhetorically "can
- Peter was crucified in Rome in 67 A.D. during the reign of Nero. Eusebius says that this was after coming to Rome twenty-five years earlier. (Eusebius, The Chronicle.) Peter thus arrived at Rome about 42 A.D. Several sources claim Peter was the first bishop of Rome prior to Paul's arrival. However, two more ancient Christian sources-the Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 200 A.D.) 7:46 and Origen (Haer. 3.3.3)- in their lists of the bishops of Rome begin with Linus. Constitution says he was appointed by Paul. However, Paul did not arrive in Rome, according to Jerome, until 25 years after Jesus' resurrection. This means Paul arrived sometime after around 57 A.D. (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men, eh. V.) Peter apparently was acting bishop without ordination of the church he founded at Rome until Paul in 57 A.D. arrives. Then in Peter's absence, Paul appoints a bishop-Linus. The Constitution works of charity), James says, cannot save.
What few commentators like to note is James' words on faith and works are directly based on (Matt. 25:30-46). In this Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the dividing line between the saved and lost, as Jesus tells it, is whether one did works of charity to his brethren. Jesus requires the very same acts of crucial charity that James cites-provision of food, water, and clothes. (For further discussion, see page 201 et seq.) James then cites example after example to prove that works justify. He concludes "man is justified by works and not by faith alone" \i.e., a faith that is alone]. ((Jas. 2:24).) This is discussed in more depth later on in this chapter in the topic "James on Faith and Works" on page 249.
The stark contrast between James and Paul was evident to a luminary as great as Luther. He writes of James' epistle:
In a word, he [[James]] wanted to guard against those who relied on
faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit,
thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes
Paul and all Scripture. 9
- When Professor Eisenman first reminded people about James' role, the response was very hostile. Eisenman was accused of "contradicting the New Testament" which supposedly "depicts Jesus' successor as Peter." (See "Book About Brother of Jesus Stirs Up Furor," L.A. Times (June 14, 1997) Metro, at 4.) Other professors claimed Eisenman's views on James were "marginal." He is not even coming from "left field," but "from over the fence." Id. Yet, Eisenman's view is the only conclusion supported in history. Professor Eisenman now has allies willing to defend him, including the renown Christian scholar Ben Witheringon III, in The Brother of Jesus (N.Y.: Harper Collins,
- at 89-211.
- "Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)," from the American Edition of Luther's Works 10
Thus, indeed James is going directly after Paul's teachings on salvation. He is proving them, in his mind, to be false. The contrast is stark and blunt. There is no rational basis to imagine James intends to do something other than correct a perceived false teaching by none other than Paul.
What aids this conclusion is that this correction process continues throughout James' Epistle. The fact the entire epistle continues in anti-Paul directions therefore heightens the probability that James' Epistle was aimed at Paul. Before reviewing each of those smaller corrections by James of Paul, let's explore the larger conflict whether salvation can be by a faith that lacks works. James' points are so obviously aimed at Paul that it bespeaks this Epistle served as a road map in a trial against Paul.
James on Faith and Works
Paul teaches that one can be justified by faith without works. (Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:16). 11 James taught the exact opposite in James chapter two. Faith without works cannot justify and cannot save.
"The greatest danger zone in evangelical thinking is that most believe that because no works are required to reconcile us to God, no works are necessary to get us to heaven!" Pastor Reimar Schultze (citing the three judgment parables of Matt. 25)
-
W. G. Kummel, The New' Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems et seq.) The works-of-charity-as-necessary-for-salvation formula is merely a repeat of (Isa. 58:5-8). Thus, Jesus and James are saying nothing novel. Paul is the one staking out a novel claim that runs against the revealed word of God. Paul is claiming salvation must never turn on adding works to faith. Paul claims if you do so, you commit a heresy. You are making salvation depend on putting God in your debt-God owes you salvation. (Rom. 4:4.)
-
(Rom. 4:5) states: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (KJV). This clearly says you are justified by faith even if you have no works. Paul says the same thing in (Gal. 2:16:) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.... Een we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
-
The same message is in (Isa. 58:5-8) (NLT). God tells the people that "you humble yourselves by going through the motions " (v. 5) but what God wants is for "you to share your food with the hungry and welcome the poor wanderer into your homes. Give clothes to those who need them." (v. 6-7). Then quite clearly, God says: "If you do these things, your salvation will come like the dawn." (v. 8.) Isaiah means mere verbal expression of faith or even humility is not enough. Action
Paul justified his conclusion based on (Gen. 15:6) where God's promise in Genesis 15:5 was reckoned by Abraham as righteousness. In the Hebrew, Abraham, not God, is clearly the actor reckoning something as righteousness. However, Paul interpreted the verse to mean God imputed righteousness to Abraham based on faith. From this Paul deduced salvation based on Abraham's faith alone. (Gal. 3:6-9; (Rom. 4:3).)
Paul is thus claiming (Gen. 15:6) is about Justification by Faith. As we will discuss below, however, this verse lends no support at all, just as James is asserting, to the concept of justification by faith alone. Paul was misled by an erroneous translation in the Septuagint (247 B.C.) of the Hebrew of (Gen. 15:6).