Jude the Brother of James

I’m currently preparing a sermon from the epistle of Jude for this coming Sunday. Every time I read Jude (and I read it often because it is one of my favorites) I am always blown away by the humility he expresses. That humility might be easily missed if you don’t realize who Jude is. After all this letter is full of rather harsh judgments so what is humble about Jude? Well, for one, Jude identifies himself in the very first verse in this way:

“Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James”

An obvious question at this point would be ‘who is James?’ That was not an uncommon name in the first century and in that geographical area. The fact that Jude identifies himself simply as the brother of James suggests that the original audience knew exactly what James was in mind and he was important. The James he was referring to would have a status that obviously elevates him in the reader’s mind above their neighbor or cousin also named James. This is THE James that Jude is saying he is brother of. Kind of sounds braggy, right? Yet I am saying he is humble? Keep reading.

In the first century Christian world who was THE James? There are three primary candidates. One is James, the brother of John (both of whom were sons of Zebedee) who was one of the original 12 apostles. Another is James, son of Alphaeus, who was also one of the original 12 apostles. (c.f. 10:2-3). The final candidate is James, the brother of the Lord Jesus himself (c.f. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).

As to the first two candidates, between the two of them, the first would be much more likely than the second. Why? Because James the brother of John is a much more prominent figure in the Gospels whereas James the son of Alphaeus is not mentioned much at all. Peter, James and John form the inner circle that Jesus kept closest to him during his earthly ministry. It was they who were with him on the mount of transfiguration (c.f. Matthew 17:1-2) and it was they who were with him when he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane (c.f. Matthew 26:36-37). Indeed this trio, Peter, James and John, is seen all throughout the Gospel accounts as receiving more time and attention from Jesus (Mark 5:37; 13:13; Luke 8:51, etc.).* By comparison, James the son of Alphaeus is hardly mentioned.**

That being the case the most reasonable inference is that James the brother of John is much more likely to be the James whom Jude is saying is his brother rather than James the son of Alphaeus. But, alas, this is still not likely when compared to our third candidate, James the brother of the Lord Jesus.

The first reason is because James, the brother of John, dies early in the church’s story. He is, in fact, the first of the apostle to be martyred. Acts 12:1-13 informs us:

“About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.”

So then the likely choice between the two apostles named James died early on in the church’s history. This makes him less likely to be the one Jude calls his brother because the implication of Jude’s letter is that James is someone the people know, not used to know. The dating of Jude’s epistle is challenging but most scholars agree it is no earlier than 67 A.D. and may be as late as 80 A.D. Regardless of where it fits into that spectrum it is a significant amount of time since the passing of James the brother of John which makes Jude’s identification of this James as his brother very unlikely. Especially since Jude would then be able to say he is also the brother of the apostle John who would have still been living and well known.

So then Jude’s brother James is not likely the son of Alphaeus because he is a more marginal figure in the church and New Testament Scriptures. Furthermore he is unlikely to be James the brother of John who would have been long since martyred before Jude wrote his letter and he could have mentioned John instead would also have been his brother and who was still living at the time. So this leaves us with James the brother of Jesus as the most likely candidate.

James, the brother of the Lord Jesus, is not only the best candidate by process of elimination, however. There is also strong positive evidence for him being Jude’s brother. First there is the fact that Jesus’ family is identified in Matthew 13:55-56. Let’s look:

“Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

In this text not only do we see James mentioned as one of Jesus’ brothers but also Joseph, Simon and… Judas. Judas from which the name Jude is derived from! So we now have evidence that Jesus has a brother named James and also a brother named Jude.

We ought to mention more about this James because he undergoes a radical shift in his life. James did not believe in his brother Jesus as the Messiah, not at first. John 7:5 tells us “For not even his brothers believed in him.” Elsewhere we see that Jesus’ family thinks he has gone mad and they try to lay hold of him (Mark 3:21). And yet we see in Galatians 1:19, years later, that Paul speaks of James being among the Jerusalem apostles. It is in connection with this that we see James, the Lord’s brother, is the same James who is a prominent leader in the Jerusalem church. In Acts 15 this James exercises considerable sway in the debate over circumcision and gentiles becoming Christians. As a leader in the church at Jerusalem, the birthplace of the church, James would be a figure that many Christians would know by name. He is a very fitting candidate for Jude’s brother on that front. THE James is James the leader of the church in Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord Jesus himself.

What was it that took James from an unbeliever who thought his brother had lost his mind and formed a ‘messiah complex’ to being a believer who held a very important role in the early church? The answer is clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

The text separately mentions an appearance of the risen Lord to James. Not James the brother of John or James the son of Alphaeus, for they are numbered with the 12 whom Jesus already appeared to. But James, Jesus’ own brother. And as a result we see in Acts 1:12-14 this:

“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.”

The same family who thought Jesus was crazy, the same brothers who didn’t believe in him, are there with the 120 in the upper room, in one accord with the believers, when the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost.

The fact is that the death and resurrection of Jesus made a believer out of his own family. James in particular was clearly impacted and had a first hand encounter with his brother as the risen Lord. It is what led to him being a leader in the church. It was what led to his writing of the epistle bearing his name where he introduces himself as “James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” He doesn’t even feel worthy of mentioning that Jesus is his brother but he humbles himself as a slave of Jesus. Jude follows suit. He too is a slave to Jesus, his own brother. He does not feel worthy to address him so informally as his brother but he is willing to call James his brother.

Can you imagine what would have to happen in your life to where you would with full sincerity call your sibling your master and Lord? That you would say of yourself you are their slave? Imagine having your brother saying that he is the God of all creation, sovereign over the things of heaven and earth. You would think he was mad too. You wouldn’t believe him either. But something convinced James and Jude that their brother was indeed God in flesh and that they were his slaves. That something was his public execution and public resurrection.

So everytime I read Jude (or James) I am taken back by the humility expressed. It is entirely appropriate, of course, but almost unbelievable. Only the resurrection of Christ makes sense out of it all.

*This might be seen as Jesus playing favorites but there an alternative to this. First these three may have been in the most need of Jesus spiritual guidance because they were the most susceptible to fall. James and John are nicknamed “the sons of thunder” by Jesus because they were quick to want to call down fire on unbelievers (the nickname proves Jesus was funny by the way). Peter, as we know, whacked a guy’s ear off in the garden of Gethsemane and denied Jesus three times. So it may not be the case that Jesus was playing favorites at all but that certain students need more help and personal attention than others.

However, even if it is the case that Jesus was closer to these three than the rest of the 12, so what? Do not most people experience a closer bond with some friends than others? Jesus may have found their close companionship more comfortable that he did some of the others. That is no sin.

**James the brother of John is often called James the Great whereas James the son of Alphaeus is often called James the Less or James the Younger.

Why The World Craves Superheroes

I am about to reveal, to those of you who were not already painfully aware, that I am a nerd. Even so I thought in light of all of the super hero movies that have been coming out over the past decade, and with the great success of the Avengers movie and all of the individual super hero movies surrounding it, I would take some time to wax eloquent upon the notion of super heroes. In this post it is my intention to discuss two matters in particular. 1. What is the difference between a “hero” and a “super hero” and 2. Why does the world crave them? The first question is purely for fun and something of a matter of controversy among us nerds who care and it will be dealt with on a philosophical level. The second will take on a theological tone and is something that is genuinely worth considering even if you’re not a hardcore comic super hero fanatic.

1. What is the difference between a hero and a super hero?

This question may seem silly to some right off the bat but it is actually not so easily answered. Take for instance Batman as opposed to Superman. Batman has no super powers, he can’t fly, see through walls, shoot laser beams from his eyes, nor could he withstand a bullet to the head. So is Batman not a super hero whereas Superman is? Is it “super human” abilities that makes one a super hero? Is that the sole condition?

If Batman is not a super hero because he does not have “super powers” then is he a hero on the same level as a local police officer or firefighter? Yet it would seem that there is a difference between Batman and officer Dave, right? If Batman isn’t a super hero then neither is Iron Man, after all, he is just a man in a really cool suit but he has no super powers either. That of course also knocks out Hawkeye and Black Widow, etc. So there you go, 3 of the 6 Avengers in the movie that just came out are not super heroes by this line of thinking. But, gosh, that just doesn’t set well with me.

I am not personally convinced that “super human powers” are what makes a super hero as opposed to just an average hero. I think there is more to it than that. For one, I would counter the notion that a super hero needs super powers in the sense that it has to be “super human” to the point of almost “super natural”. For instance I think that while the ability to fly or wield lightning certainly counts as a super power, I would argue that extreme intellect or skill of some kind might count also. A super hero needs some sort of almost untouchable quality or ability such as genius intellect, incredible fighting skill, or phenomenal use of a bow and arrow, etc. So whether it is an almost paranormal ability or just such a high level of skill or intelligence that no more than a handful in the world might be able to match, this is one necessary component of a super hero.

So a super hero needs what we might call “extraordinary ability” and may be, but need not be, possessing powers that exceed actual human potential. But this is not the sole component of being a super hero is it? I think not. After all one with “extraordinary ability” could just as easily be a super villain! So it would seem that another feature of a super hero is a strong sense of, and belief in, the need for justice in the world. This need for justice drives all true super heroes. It is what turned a billionaire playboy like Tony Stark into Iron Man, it is what drives Batman and Spider-Man who experienced the loss of loved ones at the hands of evil and injustice. Superman, Thor, Green Lantern, etc., are all equally committed to doing what’s right and protecting the innocent. So then it would seem that this is a necessary component of what is necessary to be a super hero as well.

So we have 1. extraordinary ability and 2. a compelling sense of justice but I think we are still missing one key element in the making of a true super hero, namely, a persona. Super heroes are separated from regular heroes by adopting a persona that strikes fear in the hearts of those who are evil and that brings hope and courage to those looking for someone to fill the gap. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America, etc., etc. They all have a name and an image that says something to those who would oppose what is good, a message of fear, a message of assurance that their days are numbered. They stand as symbols of freedom, safety, and hope to the people they protect who desperately need a hero like them to do what the police and even the military can’t accomplish without them.

So I offer you these three points that I believe make for a super hero.

1. Extraordinary ability.
2. A compelling sense of justice.
3. A powerful persona.

This is, I think, a working definition of a super hero and, although it is not perhaps the final word on the matter, I think it has merit. I would genuinely welcome your thoughts as to what qualities are essential to and/or separate hero from super hero. That is if you’re willing to out yourself as a nerd like me.

2. Why do we love super heroes?

I, like so many other young boys (and I’ll bet a not a few young girls), grew up enthralled by the notion of super heroes. I remember excitedly reading through my comic books, watching Marvel’s X-Men on Saturday mornings, collecting trading cards and doing my best to draw pictures of my favorite heroes like The Amazing Spider-Man. I have always loved super heroes, I still do, and I am certain I always will.

I know I am not alone either because they keep cranking out more and more Marvel Comics movies. Not only that but the movie The Avengers was one of the highest grossing movies of all time and has become the highest-grossing movie in Walt Disney Studios history.

So why is it that this film and many of the other super hero films have been so wildly popular? I think I know. I think it is because the world needs and longs for a hero and deep down within the soul of every person there is a longing for perfect justice which is an ideal that seems completely beyond our grasp. We want someone to stand in the gap and answer the injustice we see in this world day after day.

How many times have we seen or heard about something that has happened which demands that goodness prevail over it and that justice be served and yet it goes completely unanswered? When we see the poor and the weak oppressed and preyed upon by the vultures of this world, or the man who raped and murdered a woman but who gets released because of a mishandling of the chain of evidence, we want justice and yet our imperfect system of law and the endless bureaucracy keeps perfect justice from being fulfilled.

We long for a savior figure who is above reproach, who is perfectly just and perfectly capable of executing justice. We want someone who isn’t tied down by the imperfect system, we want someone above the law but who keeps the spirit of the law, someone who does what’s right no matter what the personal sacrifice might be.

I think we love super heroes because built into our soul is a longing for our creator-God who is perfect justice. We are longing for the kind of justice that can only be met in the cross of Jesus Christ and will finally culminate at the judgment throne of God. One day Christ will return and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and on that day all the wrong that has been done from the beginning until that day will judged and perfect justice will be dealt out. Those in Christ who have had their sins paid by the death of Christ will enter into a new world of perfect justice, free of pain and suffering where no more tyrants will exist. Those apart from Christ will see the justice in their condemnation for their rebellion and all that they have done in rejecting God’s sovereignty and they will enter eternity in hell.

Our longing for a super hero is our longing for God. Our longing for justice is prophetic of a future day of perfect justice. Our super hero, Jesus, has intervened in our trouble and gave his life to save us from our sin and he overcame death itself. All who trust in Christ will one day see perfect justice and will know what it is to be in the presence of a real live super hero.

Theories Concerning the Resurrection of Jesus

When studying the New Testament as a historical document, that is, when not looking at it as a book of faith but merely a 1st century collection of writings, New Testament historians disagree about some things concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Some of these disagreements are because of philosophical bias’ one direction or the other. For instance, if a person studies history with a naturalistic worldview which a priori (i.e. before the facts) dismisses any possibility of the supernatural, then they will never conclude from historical investigation that a miracle has occurred because they have decided ahead of time that miracles don’t happen. On the other hand theists can be biased too and may be quick to believe reports of miracles because their worldview allows and even expects them to occur.

Even so, despite the personal bias’ of every individual, there are some things that New Testament Historians almost universally agree upon when it comes to the death and resurrection accounts of Jesus. Here are a handful of the most widely accepted facts that scholars from KJV Only Fundamentalists to Atheist/Agnostic scholars agree upon.

1. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died in either 30 or 33 A.D.
2. The tomb where Jesus was buried was found empty.
3. Jesus’ disciples genuinely believed that they saw Jesus risen from the dead.
4. Saul of Tarsus (later known as the apostle Paul) was an enemy of the church but became one of its biggest promoters after seeing what he believed was the risen Jesus.
5. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was a skeptic during Jesus’ 3 years of ministry but became a leader in the Jerusalem church.
6. The disciples went from fearful for their lives to boldly proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection even under pang of death.

There are other facts that we could mention but these will be sufficient for our point. When historians are investigating the past and trying to ascertain what really did and didn’t occur they start with determining the facts they can know with a high probability of certainty and then they put forth scenarios which account for the known facts. A good theory is one that accounts for all of the facts without forcing any of them to fit and is not ad hoc, that is, the theory is plausible given what we know. An ad hoc position is one that may fit all the facts but it leaves a person scratching their head as to why we ought to think that this is actually what happened.

When we say a theory is plausible, for example, if you come across a tree that has fallen in the woods, and the tree and area around it are all scorched, what might you conclude? You could conclude that an alien spaceship crashed, knocking over the tree and when it exploded it burned the tree and the surrounding area. This theory would fit with all of the facts and doesn’t force any of them, but it does seem less plausible than another theory, namely, that the tree was struck by lightning, caught fire and fell over. Given that both theories make sense of the facts at hand, they are both at least possible, but the evidence and our wider experience it is more likely the latter theory which is true since we know that trees are struck by lightning all the time but there is no documented proof of aliens space ships.

So, when it comes to the facts that historians agree upon concerning the events of Jesus supposed death and resurrection, the question is this “What theory best explains all of the facts?” Here is a handful of suggestions that have tried to make sense of (or perhaps avoid) the claims that Jesus died and rose again bodily.

1. The “Swoon” Theory

This theory suggests that perhaps Jesus didn’t really die at all. Perhaps after Jesus was beaten so severely and hung upon the cross for a number of hours his pulse and respiration became so low as to be undetectable and he was presumed dead. After he was taken off the cross his body was prepared for burial with spices and wrapped and he was laid in the tomb. After being in the tomb unconscious for a few days perhaps the coolness of the tomb and having some rest revived Jesus. Jesus then walked into town and appeared to his disciples who believed him to have risen from the dead.

Well, how does this do when compared against our facts? Right off the bat it fails in that it denies fact #1, that Jesus was crucified and DIED on the cross. Scholars are convinced that Jesus actually died for good reason. Josephus reports that 3 of his friends were being crucified and per his request they were removed from the crosses and given the best medical care available and yet 2 of them died anyway. The cross was a brutal torturous way to kill people and it was good for what it was designed, namely, providing painful and sure death. Nothing indicates that Jesus was taken down before the job was done, nor was he given medical attention. Jesus was taken down because the roman soldiers charged with assuring the death of those being crucified was certain he was dead.

Furthermore, does this really pass the test on fact #3 that Jesus’ disciples believed they saw him risen from the dead? Imagine, were this theory true, what Jesus would have looked like! As he staggered into town and made it to where the disciples were, when they saw him would they say to themselves “Look, the risen Lord!” or would they have said “Oh my goodness, quick get a doctor, Jesus barely survived a crucifixion!” A broken, doubled over in horrendous pain, not sure if he’s gonna pull through this, Jesus, is not exactly the portrait the disciples painted. Such a happening would hardly explain the disciples going from fearful to their life to boldly proclaiming a risen and glorious Jesus who holds the keys of life!

2. The “Twin” Theory

This theory states that Jesus really did die on the cross, but Jesus’ secret twin brother took his place afterwards. This is a conspiracy theory on the grandest scale, is it not? Depending on how this supposedly played out there are some major questions and problems here. One question is this, how wide is this conspiracy? If it’s a familial conspiracy, that is, if only Jesus, his twin brother, his mother and brothers and sisters knew the plan, then they would have had to fool the disciples. But imagine getting to know a person intimately for 3 years and then replacing that person with a look-alike. The likelihood that the disciples would buy that he was the resurrected Jesus seems low.

Furthermore, how would Jesus’ twin be unknown to everyone? This conspiracy would have had to been born at the same time Jesus and his brother were! The twin would have had to have been hidden away so that no one knew of him from the get go. And then comes the question of “why?” Why would anyone want to do pull off this scheme? It got Jesus killed who apparently volunteered to die for the sake of this plan, and it got many other people killed as well. It gave no one riches, the twin didn’t get to lead anyone since he disappeared after 40 days so it wasn’t about glory. This theory just doesn’t make sense and it is very ad hoc and leaves us with way more questions than it does answers. It also fails fact #2 that the tomb was found empty. What became of the body of Jesus when his brother took over?

3. The “Wrong Tomb” Theory

This theory suggests that the disciples went to the wrong tomb and found it empty and mistook it for Jesus having raised from the dead. This theory fails facts #3 #4 #5 and #6 because it accounts for non of the appearances that the disciples believed they saw, nor Saul’s conversion, nor the conversion of James and is hardly fuel for the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection unto death by martyrdom. If all that happened was they found an empty tomb that they mistakenly though was Jesus’ this would hardly lead to the conclusion that he was risen from the dead but rather a lot of confusion as to what happened to Jesus’ body. It would not have provided that transformative charge needed to propel the message of the resurrection.

4. The “Hallucination” Theory

This is probably the most common theory expressed today by scholarly circles that reject bodily resurrection of Jesus. This theory states that Jesus really died on the cross and was buried but the grieving disciples experienced a hallucination of the risen Jesus that they genuinely believed to be him and this is what changed their behavior and caused them to preach their message even unto death. This view has better explanatory power than some of the other theories do however it still fails on several counts.

This view still doesn’t adequately explain the empty tomb, where did the body go? Furthermore it doesn’t explain why Paul would have hallucinated seeing Jesus because he was not grieving his loss, rather, he was quite pleased that they killed that heretic and was going about the business of suppressing his followers. The biggest problem yet, however, is that hallucinations do not occur in groups apart from the use of drugs to induce such experiences. Even in cases where a group of people hallucinate because of the use of drugs, they do not hallucinate the same thing. Just as people sleeping next to one another don’t share dreams, neither do people share hallucinations, they are personal experiences in the minds of individuals. Furthermore the earliest accounts of Jesus’ resurrection state that he was seen by individuals, small groups, as many as 500 at once and all at different times and places. So the hallucination theory also fails to meet all the facts and it runs into some very real problems practically speaking.

5. The “Spiritual Resurrection” Theory

In this theory Jesus is said to have risen from the dead spiritually and now lives in the hearts of believers but he was not raised bodily. This view fails all but our 1st of the 6 facts. This theory, a favorite of Liberal theologians, doesn’t answer why the tomb was found empty, nor does it adequately explain the fact that the disciples, the half-brother of Jesus and an enemy of Jesus all claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead in a physical body. What caused the fearful disciples to lose their fear and go boldly preaching until they were dragged through the streets, ran through with swords, thrown off buildings and crucified themselves? Was it just that they believed that Jesus was living in their hearts now that he died and the spirit of his message now was in their heart? Again, this is contrary to the facts we have, it is not the best explanation of the data we have.

6. The “Jesus is an Alien’ Theory

This theory states that either Jesus was himself an alien or aided by aliens and, before you laugh, some people take this seriously. In this view they can actually fit all 6 facts and can affirm the Jesus really died and was really brought back to life, that he really appeared to all of his disciples, to Paul, to James and that it radically changed the hearts of his followers and empowered their message. After all, aliens can potentially possess the advanced scientific technology to reanimate a dead body, right? Heck, this can even make sense of the ascension in Acts 1, I mean you’ve seen Start Trek right? Beam me up Scotty?

So this theory accepts all the facts, it doesn’t force them to fit, but is it the most probable view? Frankly I would say it is more probable than the above theories because it at least meets all of the agreed upon facts, but it is still way more ad hoc than our final theory.

7. The “God Raised Jesus from the Dead” Theory

In this view Jesus really died on the cross and on the third day God raised Jesus from the dead. This makes sense out of all of the given facts, it is not forced and it is not ad hoc, that is, given the context this theory makes a lot more sense than all of the other proposed theories do. Jesus had preached for three years prior to his death and had predicted that the Messiah must suffer and die and that God would raise him from the dead. Given that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection, and given the facts that we know, this theory is the best theory we have. Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many eye-witnesses both friend and foe, believer and unbeliever. It radically changed the disciples and Saul of Tarsus and James his doubting half-brother.

While it is true that this view assumes that God exists, this is not a non-evidenced assumption. There are many good arguments and evidences for God’s existence (e.g. Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Moral Argument, etc.) and, in fact, since Jesus said that God exists and would raise him from the dead, his resurrection is itself a powerful argument for God’s existence.

So then, from the perspective of historical inquiry and investigation, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the accepted historical facts. It is only philosophical bias that will keep people from accepting this fact of history, it is certainly not a lack of evidence and reason. So, what will you do with this information? Will you reject the evidence and choose to believe an inferior theory because you do not want to believe or will you go where the evidence leads and become a follower of Jesus, the risen Lord who offers you forgiveness of your sin and eternal life through faith in him?