What do we know about James the Just

[discipler7]

The scripture does not imply that James conspired against Paul. It most certainly does say that people were saying Paul was teaching against the Torah, but James and the elders suggested a course of action to prove otherwise that Paul agreed on.

.
From ACTS.20:23; ACTS.21:11 & 18-40, God already foretold Paul that he was going to be sent into the "lion's den" in Jerusalem, ie Paul already knew about the "trap" set by James the Just. As the leader of the Judaizers and being Paul's adversary, it was James who likely and knowingly sent Paul into a Jewish religious riot that was already brewing.
... Paul "agreeing" to James's course of action is not very different from Jesus Christ "agreeing" to be arrested and crucified by the Romans.

 

[Dave-W]

The second-century historian Hegesippus wrote that following James’s death, the 'Church' chose another of Jesus’ blood relatives, His cousin Simon or Simeon.

Was that a cousin or was this the younger brother?

Simon bar Clopas.

Clopas was Joseph's brother. (so he was first cousin of Jesus and James)

 

[tampasteve]

.
From ACTS.20:23; ACTS.21:11 & 18-40, God already foretold Paul that he was going to be sent into the "lion's den" in Jerusalem, ie Paul already knew about the "trap" set by James the Just. As the leader of the Judaizers and being Paul's adversary, it was James who likely and knowingly sent Paul into a Jewish religious riot that was already brewing.
... Paul "agreeing" to James's course of action is not very different from Jesus Christ "agreeing" to be arrested and crucified by the Romans.

You might be correct, but that is adding quite a lot into the text that just is not there. There were plenty of people in Jerusalem that would have wanted Paul to be arrested that James did not need to conspire. Paul "agreeing" was Paul submitting to the authority of James and the rest of the elders, it was not just James in attendance.

 

[Dave-W]

Paul already knew about the "trap" set by James the Just. As the leader of the Judaizers and being Paul's adversary, it was James who likely and knowingly sent Paul into a Jewish religious riot that was already brewing.
... Paul "agreeing" to James's course of action is not very different from Jesus Christ "agreeing" to be arrested and crucified by the Romans.

Wow. You could not have gotten that more wrong if you had tried.

Paul and James were in total agreement. There was no "trap." If James was such a "Judaizer," why was HE the one that delivered the decision in Acts 15 AGAINST the Judaizers? And why did he uphold that same decision in Acts 21?

BTW - do you know what a Judaizer actually is?

 

[Dave-W]

Paul "agreeing" was Paul submitting to the authority of James and the rest of the elders, it was not just James in attendance.

Paul agreeing to James' course of action was a loud and clear statement from Paul that he agreed with James.

 

[tampasteve]

Paul agreeing to James' course of action was a loud and clear statement from Paul that he agreed with James.

I agree with you, loud and clear

 

[discipler7]

Paul agreeing to James' course of action was a loud and clear statement from Paul that he agreed with James.

.
GALATIANS;

Call to Apostleship
1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. ...

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Contacts at Jerusalem
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. ...

Defending the Gospel
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

No Return to the Law
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

JAMES;

1:4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. ...

25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. ...

2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works..."

 

[Dave-W]

I am not sure what you are trying to say with those 2 passages.

I am familiar with both.


BTW - do you realize what ever translation you are using is adding commentary into the text? "No Return to the Law" is NOT part of the text and its presence there influences how the following verses are to be interpreted.

Paul was writing to Gentile believers, who were NEVER EVER under the Law. How can they "return" to some place they never were?

 

[discipler7]

Paul agreeing to James' course of action was a loud and clear statement from Paul that he agreed with James.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with those 2 passages.

Paul = saved by faith.
James = saved by works.

James did not agree with Paul.

 

[Dave-W]

Paul = saved by faith.
James = saved by works.
James did not agree with Paul.

In that case you are saying the bible lies by having both of their writings in it.

OR - you misunderstand one or both of them.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The second-century historian Hegesippus wrote that following James’s death, the 'Church' chose another of Jesus’ blood relatives, His cousin Simon or Simeon.

Was that a cousin or was this the younger brother?

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
The early Christian community of Jerusalem was led by a Council of Elders, and considered itself part of the wider Jewish community. This collegiate system of government in Jerusalem is seen in Acts 11:30 and 15:22.

Eusebius of Caesarea provides the names of an unbroken succession of thirty-six Bishops of Jerusalem up to the year 324. The first sixteen of these bishops were Jewish (from James the Just through Judas). After the Bar Kokhba revolt, Judas ceased to be bishop and all subsequent bishops were Gentiles:
"But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision."

1. James the Just (until 62)
2. Simeon I (62–107)
3. Justus I (107–113)
4. Zaccheus
5. Tobias
6. Benjamin I
7. John I
8. Matthias I
9. Philip
10. Seneca
11. Justus II
12. Levis
13. Ephram
14. Joseph I
15. Judas (135)

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

BTW - do you know what a Judaizer actually is?

I have found that most people don't...

 

[Lulav]

PLEASE NOTE:

Those not members of this forum may not debate those of this forum. Please adjust your posts accordingly.

THANK YOU

 

[Lulav]

Thank you for that info. I take it that is from an Orthodox source? If so since they named James as the 'so-called' brother of Yeshua do they not believe what Paul wrote about him being such?

Eusebius of Caesarea provides the names of an unbroken succession of thirty-six Bishops of Jerusalem up to the year 324.

Do you have any history on why it changed from the
Desposyni who were of the circumcision to the Uncircumcised?

 

[CherubRam]

Thank you for that info. I take it that is from an Orthodox source? If so since they named James as the 'so-called' brother of Yeshua do they not believe what Paul wrote about him being such?



Do you have any history on why it changed from the
Desposyni who were of the circumcision to the Uncircumcised?

Circumcision is the Old Covenant, we now live under the New Covenant. If the Old Covenant had not been revoked by God, then we would still have circumcision. From the time Christ began preaching, to the destruction of the temple, that was a transitional period.

The Desposyni comes from this verse not being correctly translated. Other translations say "Children."

My Deuteronomy 33
8 About Levi he said:
"Your Thummim and Urim belong
to the man you favor.
You tested him at Massah;
you contended with him at the waters of Meribah.

9 He said of his father and mother,
'I have no regard for them.'
He did not acknowledge his brothers, his siblings.
But he watched over your word
and kept your covenant.

10 He teaches your precepts to Jacob
and your laws to Israel.
He offers incense before you
and whole burnt offerings on your altar.

11 Bless all his skills, Yahwah,
and be pleased with the work of his hands.
Crush the loins of those who rise up against him;
strike his foes till they rise no more."

 

[Dave-W]

If so since they named James as the 'so-called' brother of Yeshua do they not believe what Paul wrote about him being such?

Like the Catholics, the Orthodox do not believe Joseph and Mary ever consummated their marriage. The "brothers" were from Joseph's previous marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

Do you have any history on why it changed from the
Desposyni who were of the circumcision to the Uncircumcised?

That would have been due to Rome forcibly removing all Jews from Province Judea and scattering them around the empire. No Jews were allowed to be in Jerusalem following the failed Bar Kochba revolt.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thank you for that info. I take it that is from an Orthodox source? If so since they named James as the 'so-called' brother of Yeshua do they not believe what Paul wrote about him being such?

Do you have any history on why it changed from the
Desposyni who were of the circumcision to the Uncircumcised?

Yes, each Patriarchate keeps its own list of Bishops from the beginning. Yes, James was the brother of Yeshua from a previous marriage of Joseph (his previous wife died).

The change was due to the Bar Kokhba revolt. Hadrian specifically targeted Sabbath observance, circumcision, the laws of family purity and the teaching of Torah. At the end of the Bar Kochba revolt, Hadrian decided that the way not to have another revolt was to cut off the Jews from Jerusalem and all Judea.

 

[visionary]

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
The early Christian community of Jerusalem was led by a Council of Elders, and considered itself part of the wider Jewish community. This collegiate system of government in Jerusalem is seen in Acts 11:30 and 15:22.

Eusebius of Caesarea provides the names of an unbroken succession of thirty-six Bishops of Jerusalem up to the year 324. The first sixteen of these bishops were Jewish (from James the Just through Judas). After the Bar Kokhba revolt, Judas ceased to be bishop and all subsequent bishops were Gentiles:
"But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision."

1. James the Just (until 62)
2. Simeon I (62–107)
3. Justus I (107–113)
4. Zaccheus
5. Tobias
6. Benjamin I
7. John I
8. Matthias I
9. Philip
10. Seneca
11. Justus II
12. Levis
13. Ephram
14. Joseph I
15. Judas (135)

May I borrow this?

 

[Open Heart]

Thank you for that info. I take it that is from an Orthodox source? If so since they named James as the 'so-called' brother of Yeshua do they not believe what Paul wrote about him being such?

The oldest writings say that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, and that Yeshua's siblings were step-siblings from this from this first marriage. The Eastern Orthodox accept these writings. The EO's believe that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage. The idea that Jesus had other siblings by Mary was not held by Christians until the Protestant Reformation.