The Book of Revelation contains a commendation for the Church at Ephesus for having "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars." Who this person was is not stated, but all the evidence points to it being Paul, who wrote the greater part of the New Testament. This study looks at the background behind this trial, and examines the book of the New Testament that appears to have been written as the "Case for the Proscecution" in the trial.
The church at Ephesus was one of the strongest in the region then known as Asia (later to be known as Asia Minor), the location of the six churches to which the Book of Revelation was written. Paul's first and hurried visit for the space of three months to Ephesus is recorded in Acts 18:19–21. The work he began on this occasion was carried forward by Apollos [18:24-26] and Aquila and Priscilla. On his second visit early in the following year, he remained at Ephesus for three years, for he found it was the key to the western provinces of Asia. Here "a great door and effectual" was opened to him, [1 Cor 16:9] and the church was established and strengthened by his diligent labours there. [Acts 20:20,31] From Ephesus the gospel spread abroad "almost throughout all Asia." [19:26] The word "mightily grew and prevailed" despite all the opposition and persecution he encountered.
But things went terribly wrong between Paul and the churches of Asia, including Ephesus. The disagreements between Paul and those in church leadership there are reported in Acts 19:8,9: "And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of The Way before the multitude ...". "The Way" is the name by which the church in Jersulam was known. The differences between Paul and the leaders of The Way, namely Peter, James and John are played down somewhat by Luke in the book of Acts, but read the epistles and their doctrinal differences were huge. Acts is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way". Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans.
In 2 Timothy 1:15, Paul writes, "This you know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes." Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "this you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia, the very place that God told John to write, his seven special churches were. Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Jesus. Obviously they hadn't rejected Jesus if they were thriving churches there that God wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! This is also corroborated in Acts 21:27-29 where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him. crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place: and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."
The trial of Paul must have been a major event in 1st century church history, but it has been swept under the carpet and remains largely forgotten. Paul is revered today as being one of the greatest evangelists of all time. Every Christian church outside of the Roman Catholic Church bases its beliefs on his teachings. His key doctrine - that salvation comes by faith in the atoning work of Jesus - is the cornerstone of modern Christian theology, so it is hard to comprehend that this same Paul was tried in his day by one of the churches he pastored, that he was found guilty by them of preaching heresy and being a liar, and was forbidden to preach in their church ever again. Not only that, no doubt because of the ramifications, but in the only revelation known to have been given to a first century church, God commended them for putting him on trial and finding him guilty.
No wonder the modern Christian church rarely discusses the trial of Paul by the church at Ephesus, and when challenged, tries desperately to prove that it was not Paul but someone else who the Church at Ephesus put on trial, and that the epistle of James had nothing to do with the trial. To think of Paul having been successfully tried for heresy by the church at Ephesus, and that James' epistle might have been written to be a major part of their defence, is so unbelievable to those who follow Paul's teaching, they dismiss the evidence out of hand.
Why then is James describing a judicial assembly rather than a worship service. Why would Christians coming to worship need to be told where to stand or sit? Why would some stand and others be seated? If it were a judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might well have been unfamiliar to the participants, and clothing might be a factor that would unfairly impress the judges. More to the point, why would it be the doctrine Paul preached that James takes apart piece by piece if someone else was on trial here?
If such a trial did occur, it is very likely that the church at Ephesus would have called on the church in Jerusalem to assist them in preparing the thoeological arguments they would present at the trial. The Book of Acts indicates that Peter, James and John had taken on the role of leadership in the Church in Jerusalem. Of the three, James, aslo known as James the Just, who is said to have been the brother of Jesus, had the most senior position, having been nominated as the bishop of Jerusalem. He was the first original head of Christ's church. Paul indirectly alludes to this in Galatians 2:9: James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars". This would make his input something to be expected at a heresy trial, and James the logical person to give support to the church at Ephesus.
In the Book of Acts it is James who took 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 and says "I judge" (Acts 15:19). 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. James is using an expression of krino (to judge) in the first person form. That this is exactly the form used by a judicial officer of that time. It means "I give my judgment."
The epistle of James was written by this self-same person who acted as decision-maker over and above the apostles on doctrinal issues. The book is referred to as an epistle or letter, but there is no indication in its text as to whom it was addressed nor is there any other reason specified for it having been written. What we can glean from its content is that it argues points of doctrine over faith vs. works in the process of salvation. The doctrine being argued is not only that of a specific person, but one who James feels a degree of frustration about and towards. James 2: 20: "But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" The Book of Acts records a number of clashes between Paul and James, and Paul's gospel was one of faith without works - "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not (by) works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesuans 2:8-9). No other person in the record of the Book of Acts is shown to have clashed with the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem on points of doctrine like Paul did. Paul is also the only person recorded in the Book of Acts as having preached a gospel of salvation through faith alone in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.
James chapter 1 takes the form of an opening address, speaking to the church as a whole (the brethren), in the context of some going through diverse temptations that require wisdom. In 1:12 he then confronts the teaching that the law makes sin alive, with the answer that "when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." Paul taught this very thing in Rom 7:9. James then challenges the brethren to "not err." The Torah may well be the good gift mentioned in 1:17. The brethren were being tempted to be quick to speak and to wrath, as if a conflict is ongoing. It is as if he did not want them picking up Paul's unbridled tongue. He ends the chapter with the righteous requirements of Torah, to show mercy and to "keep ... unspotted from the world."
Those familiar with the legal system of the 1st century believe that the first portion of James 2 takes the form of "the case against the defendant" as it would have been presented in a court trial of that time. It uses the language of trials: judges (2:4), judgment seats (2:6), law (2:8, 9, 10, 12), transgressors (2:9, 11), guilty (2:10), judged (2:12), judgment (2:13). Then James confronts the basic flaw in a faith based gospel in verse 2:14.
How do we know James is arguing against Paul's teaching and not someone elses? He quotes from sections of Paul's written sermons, all of which can be read in their original context as Paul wrote them in the various epistles of Paul contained in the New Testament. As if to remove any doubt as to whether James was referring to Paul's doctrines, James uses the very same Old Testament scriptures that Paul used in his epistles to support his argument, but proceeds to show that those scriptures do not support what Paul taught, rather, they oppose it and support the very opposite of what Paul preached. For example, James confronts Paul's use of the example of Abraham's faith based righteousness (Rom 4:3, Gal. 3:6), and comes up with not faith alone, but faith and works. Then he gives some more examples of works being required for righteousness.
As you read James' argument, one has the unmistakable sense that James is dismantling the doctrines taught by Paul. This is particularly true in his discussion of faith and works. James explains Genesis 15:6 in a diametrically different way than Paul explained the very same verse in Romans 4. James tells the story of Abraham in a manner at total odds with Paul's account, and leads the reader to a diametrically opposite doctrine of justification by works and "not faith [that is] alone." This argument is examined more closely later in this study.
It is not just chapter two that takes Paul's teachings down a notch. It is almost every chapter and verse of James' Epistle that does this. It is as if James is spreading out Paul's letters on a table, finding flaws, and then writing messages that address those flaws. This is precisely the kind of assistance one would expect from the leader of the early church to provide the judges in a pending theological trial. James' epistle would have been the perfect doctrinal reference guide for the judges.
All the pieces fit that the Epistle of James was intended for a trial of Paul at a Christian-controlled synagogue. It fits the trial is the one spoken about at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2. It fits the story of Luke in Acts chapter 19 of a budding `synagogue'-church at Ephesus expelling Paul as a heretic. Ephesus, the capital city of Asia/Western Turkey, would have been the logical place to hold a theological trial against one of the most vocal preachers of the day over the doctrine he taught. It fits the place where Paul claimed he put on "his first defence" and no one stood with him and supported him, and eventually "all in Asia abandoned" him. (2 Tim. 1:15;4:14-17.)
Those who cringe at the thought of Paul having been successfully tried for heresy by the church at Ephesus, and that James' epistle might have been written to be a major part of their defence, reject these notions outright. Why then is James describing a judicial assembly rather than a worship service. Why would Christians coming to worship need to be told where to stand or sit? Why would some stand and others be seated? If it were a judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might well have been unfamiliar to the participants, and clothing might be a factor that would unfairly impress the judges. More to the point, why would it be the doctrine Paul preached that James takes apart piece by piece if someone else was on trial here?
In James 2:2-4, James uses the Greek word 'synagogue' for this meeting even though in other places in the same letter (in 5:14) he refers to the church as an ecclesia. The word ecclesia was typically used to mean church, as distinct from meetings held at a synagogue. Also, incongruously, the word synagogue is never used elsewhere in the New Testament for a church meeting, but as a place where doctrine is debated. James' context makes it clear as to this synagoge, there is "Christian ownership of and authority over this assembly." 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.
Some would question the authority James was given by the early Jerusalem church, claiming that Jesus had given this role to Peter. Eusebius (c. 260-341) in about 325 A.D. wrote the following: James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. (Ecclesiastical History, Chapter XXIII.) Hegesippus (c. 120?), who lived immediately after the apostles in Palestine, had written a work divided into five books called Memoirs. In Book V, he mentions: James, the brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. Memoirs of Hegesippus Book V. 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.
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.... [W]e 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." 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 ch. 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.
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 is pervasive, thorough, and unmistakable. James begins his message on faith and works at James 2:14-25. James 2:17 reads: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James asks rhetorically "can such faith save?" which calls for a negative answer. Thus, faith without works (in context, works of charity), James says, cannot save, but that one is justified by works. He gives several examples, but focuses particularly on Paul's favourite example of Abraham. James quotes and re-analyzes Genesis 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 et seq.)
What few commentators like to note is that James' words on faith and works are directly based on Matthew 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 - the provision of food, water, and clothes. James then cites example after example to prove that works justify. He concludes "man is justified by works and not by faith alone".
The stark contrast between James and Paul was evident to a luminary as great as Martin Luther, who based his own doctrines on Paul's salvation by faith alone. Luther wrote 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. Another time, Luther was even more blunt and somewhat humorous when he said: "Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul ... but unsuccessfully. `Faith justifies' [Paul's teaching] stands in flat contradiction to `Faith does not justify' [James 2:24]. If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I'll put my doctor's cap on him and let him call me a fool."
Luther was blunt about there being a conflict between James and Paul. He said James contradicts Paul and Luther was right, but then Luther believed Paul was right. This is what further proves the Epistle of James was likely a document used to try Paul. James is going directly after Paul's teachings on salvation. He is proving them, step by step, 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. The fact the entire epistle continues in anti-Paul directions therefore heightens the probability that James' Epistle was aimed at Paul.
So who was right? James or Paul? James is relying upon Jesus for his position, for Jesus taught the very same thing as James, using the same charitable works test. Jesus says such works were necessary to save you in Matt. 25:30-46. James says you need these identical works to add to faith to be justified. (James 2:14 et seq.) The works-of-charity-as-necessary-for-salvation formula is merely a repeat of Isaiah 58:5-8. Thus, Jesus and James are saying nothing new. 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.). Interestingly, Paul never once quoted Jesus to support the gospel he preached. He quoted the writings of the Pagan sage Aratus, and the Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato, but never Jesus.
Paul justified his conclusion based on Genesis 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, seeing richteousness in God's actions rather than God seeing righteousness in Abraham's. It had nothing to do with God reckoning anything to Abraham based on faith. It was always about how Abraham viewed God's blessing in Genesis 15:5. 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; Romans 4:3.) Paul is thus claiming Genesis 15:6 is about Justification by Faith. 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 Genesis 15:6.
When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, it was known as the Septuagint. Jewish scholars acknowledge "the Septuagint was translated by very bad translators" and "very often the [Septuagint] translators did not even know what they were reading and created nonsensical sentences by translating word for word." (Nehemiah Gordon, Hebrew Yeshua vs. Greek Jesus (Jerusalem: 2006) at 33-34.) In the example used by James to take Paul to task, Paul was misled by the highly ambiguous translation of Genesis 15:6 in the Septuagint Greek translation of 247 B.C. Paul quotes it twice. (Romans 4:3; Gal.3:6.)
Paul quotes from the Septuagint time and time again, and on every occasion, he is quoting one of the verses where the translation has been found to be highly ambiguous and misleading. Some commentators give Paul the benefit of the doubt and say Paul swallowed these errors in the Septuagint. I suspect he quoted these verses deliberately to give creedence to his gospel, knowing full well it was at odds with what Jesus and the First Testament church at Jerusalem taught.
In Paul's contrary thesis in chapters three and four of Romans that Abraham was justified by his faith alone, Paul wants us to see Abraham became the father of all who believe by implying he was transformed from sinner to a justified saint only by the step of believing. (See Rom. 3:9-10, all have sinned; Romans 4:1-5, 10-18, Abraham first justified by faith, and thus becomes father of all who believe.) However, Paul's notion totally contradicts what is clearly implied from Scripture, namely how Abraham must have been justified prior to Genesis 15:6.
Just as Paul's misreading of Genesis 15:6 led to a faith alone salvation (Romans 4:4-6), James' correction of how to read Genesis 15:6 led to a correction of Paul's faith alone doctrine. James says in the same context that a faith without deeds does not justify and cannot save. James says this precisely in James 2:14, at direct odds with Paul's teachings.
How did Paul establish the contrary view to James? Besides his out-of-context quote of Psalm 32:1-2 and his mistaken view of Genesis 15:6, Paul's faith alone doctrine had one other proof text. This came from Habakkuk. Paul claimed this passage establishes that a one-time faith saves, without any endurance in faithful living to the Law. Paul was quoting Habakkuk 2:4 but he quotes from the erroneous Septuagint translation again. This led Paul to a completely erroneous interpretation. Paul in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 states: For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written [in Habakkuk 2:4], But the righteous shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal.3:11 KJV)
But the Septuagint erred in its Greek translation of the Hebrew original. The key word in Habakkuk is not faith (i.e., pistis in Greek), but faithfulness (i.e., emunah in Hebrew). Also, Paul omits a crucial word that appears both in the Septuagint and Hebrew: it is the word 'his' before faithfulness. What Habakkuk 2:4 really says is: " ... but the just shall live by his faithfulness". Both corrections overturn Paul's intended interpretation. The restoration of these missing pieces establish the opposite of what Paul was trying to prove.
In James 2:19, James further argues against Paul's doctrine by saying the "demons believe" in God, but they are not thereby saved. James then goes on to state works are necessary to add to mental assent to make faith complete, which is another angle to what Habakkuk is saying. Faith without such works, James relates, is therefore akin to the faith which demons have. It lacks something essential. James is, in fact, recalling events in the gospels themselves. These events prove mere intellectual acceptance that Jesus is divine or Messiah means nothing if they end up being alone. Remember that back in the Gospel accounts there were demons that acknowledged the deity of Jesus? When he appeared before them they said, `We know who you are, the Holy One of God.' (cf, Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34.)
They acknowledged what the Jews were too blind to see, the full deity of Jesus Christ, as well as his humanity. But, though demons acknowledged this, they never confessed it. They never trusted him. They did not commit themselves to him, they did not live by this truth as the people about whom Habakkuk is talking did. This demonstrates Paul's invalidity. Paul said we are saved if we believe in Jesus' resurrection and that Jesus is Lord. (Romans 10:9.) The demons not only believe both facts but are personally knowledgeable about them, so they pass Paul's test for salvation. James ridicules that formula by saying mere mental assent by demons to truths about God would not save them any more than it alone would save you. Paul emphasized mental assent as what saves you. James says this notion is wrong.
Design by W3layouts
