According to some of the very earliest church traditions, the James who wrote this epistle is none other than the James mentioned by Matthew and Mark as being a brother of the Lord Jesus. (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) These two gospel writers tell us that Jesus had four brothers named James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and that He had sisters as well, but we aren't given the number or the names of the sisters. Since James is mentioned first, it is assumed he was the oldest of Jesus' male siblings, making him the second son of Mary. The brother mentioned last, Judas (who later, for obvious reasons, shortened his name to Jude), also wrote an epistle in which he mentions he is the brother of James. This lends further credence to the idea that James the brother of Jesus wrote the epistle we are about to study, for it makes a family connection evident, and it presents James as someone who is still alive at the time Jude wrote his letter, and it proves that James's name is one that everyone in the church would immediately recognize. This cannot be said of any other James in the New Testament.
He is unlikely to be James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, for James was the first of the disciples to lose his life for the faith, being put to death by Herod in about 44 AD. The letter we are about to study was written and circulated at a later date, probably somewhere around the late 50s to early 60s AD. James the son of Zebedee has never been seriously considered by most scholars as the author of this letter. The author speaks with the authority of a leader in the church, as someone with many years of experience, and James did not live but approximately eleven to fourteen years following the resurrection of Christ. He was never known to have held a position of authority in the church, unlike James the brother of Christ who was one of the top leaders of the Jerusalem church if not the top leader. (For examples of James's authority and importance in the church at Jerusalem see Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18, Galatians 2:9)
Another James has been put forth as a possible candidate as the author of this epistle, and he is James the son of Alphaeus. We are told this James was an apostle in Matthew 10:1-3, Mark 3:14-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13. We know literally nothing else about him, which suggests he is unlikely to be the author of this letter. If he had held the authority in the church that the author of this letter so obviously holds, we would certainly know a great deal about him. James the son of Alphaeus may have done a lot of wonderful things in the name of the Lord. He may have undertaken missionary journeys as so many of the other apostles did. But his deeds are lost to history and I feel this makes him a poor candidate for this epistle's author.
The only other prominent James in the New Testament is the man of whom the Apostle Paul said, "Then after three years (after his conversion), I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles---save James, the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:18-19, parenthesis mine.) Who else could have risen to such a position of authority in the church if not the Lord's brother who did not believe on Him before the resurrection (John 7:5) and with whom the Lord Jesus met privately following His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7)? We don't know what transpired in the private meeting between Jesus and James anymore than we know what happened in the private meeting between Jesus and Peter, but after that meeting James emerged as not only a believer in Christ but as a pillar of the church. Paul calls James, Peter, and John pillars of the church in Galatians 2:9 and says he and his friend Barnabas met with them. Therefore this can't be James the brother of John who was martyred about four years before Paul met with the Jerusalem council in around 48 AD.
The church at Jerusalem was made up of Jews who believed in Christ. This was not a Gentile church and it did not have Gentile leadership. Its leadership was made up of Jewish men who had had a close relationship with Jesus. The pillars of this church were probably named in order of authority by Paul in Galatians 2:9, so this means that James the brother of Jesus held the top spot. No other James that we know of could have been elected for this position. It has to be a man held in such high esteem that he outranked even the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John---two of Jesus' closest friends. Who would have been considered closer to Jesus than Peter and John if not one of the Lord's actual brothers?
Those who discount James the brother of Jesus as the author of this letter point to the fact that he does not identify himself as a brother of Jesus. (Neither does Jude, for that matter.) I doubt if James the brother of Jesus ever used their family connection to make a big deal of himself. This is because I don't believe James thought of himself as a big deal. I don't believe he felt that being a sibling of Christ made him any more special than anyone else. He had to live his life knowing that while his brother walked the earth he made fun of Him and even made suggestions that could have endangered Jesus' life. (John 7:2-5) James had to live with knowing he rejected Jesus until after the resurrection, and that at one time he thought Jesus was mentally ill (Mark 3:21), and that his rejection of Jesus as the Christ was once so thorough that he didn't even go with their mother Mary to support her at the crucifixion, leaving that role up to John who was not even a relative (John 19;26-27), and that the disgust he felt for his brother Jesus spilled over onto all who believed in Him, causing him not to take on the responsibility of caring for Mary who went instead to live with the Apostle John. So no, James doesn't say, "Hey, I'm the brother of Jesus Christ. You need to listen to me." James knows he was once as guilty of rejecting Christ as anyone else has ever been. He remembers every time he ridiculed Jesus as they grew up together. He hasn't forgotten all the ugly things he said to Jesus after Jesus began His ministry. He doesn't consider himself any better than any other person who once was lost but now is found. This is why we find him in this letter calling himself merely, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."
No comments:
Post a Comment