Was James the leader of the Jerusalem church?

[Donnie Gillum]

The statement is made quite often that James was the pastor of the Jerusalem church due mainly, I suppose, to Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18.  In the book Heresy of the Judaizers (by Mike Conn), the author himself states that James was the pastor of the Jerusalem church p. 73.

 

But there are a couple of  references in his book: one, on p. 73, stating that the Jerusalem church was lead by James the Just, which was the reason he was targeted by  Ananus ... referencing Jews in the Roman World (by Michael Grant p.174); and another, on p. 95,  stating the community there was under the supreme leadership of James, referencing Heretics (by Gerd Ludemann p. 94).

 

I am not aware of where these referenced authors get their information.  Is there any reliable history anyone is aware of that would either refute or validate the strength of James' leadership among them.

[Phillip W. Gordon]

 

 

  According to what I have read, this James was the Lord's brother, which means he would have been an elder and not one of the apostles. Personally, I have not read anywhere in the scriptures who was "the pastor" at Jerusalem.  In accordance with what Paul taught, I believe there was multiple leaders,(elders) that operated in giftings and fucntioned as, "pastors".  I would have to consider the number of believers that were there and that it was not about one man as pastor.  I view James as a "set" man, which acted as the spokesman for the elder body.

[David Huston]

Wasn’t James the highest official of the Jerusalem church?

To be sure, James was a leading figure in the Jerusalem church. Being a wise and mature man who was known to be the half-brother of Jesus, he was obviously highly regarded. But there is not a single verse of Scripture declaring that James had positional authority over any of the apostles or elders of Jerusalem. Let us look at what the Bible actually says.

Galatians 1:19 says that James was an apostle. In Galatians 2:9, Paul wrote that James, Cephas, and John "seemed to be pillars." A pillar holds up a house; it does not control or dominate it. Moreover, James is described in exactly the same terms as Peter and John without any suggestion that he exercised authority over them.

After Peter was miraculously delivered from prison in Acts 12, he told his comrades, "Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren" (Acts 12:17). Even though James is singled out, to presume that this means he held a position of authority over the rest of the brethren is adding to this verse what is not there.

In Acts 15, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by "the church and the apostles and the elders" (v.4). During the ensuing discussion about the Gentile converts, after Paul and Barnabas had given their report, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me...." Again, there is no indication that James had some sort of positional authority over these men, simply that he was an articulate and influential man. After making his suggestion as to what needed to be done, the Bible says, "Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas" (v.22). James did not issue a command as to what to do. He made a suggestion that the others agreed with. The letter they composed began, "The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles..." (v.23). It included these words, "It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord," and, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (v.28). The letter was not signed by James but was sent in the name of the entire Jerusalem assembly.

On another occasion when Paul returned from one of his missions, the Bible says, "Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present" (Acts 21:18). The implication is that James was a leading figure, an apostle. But there is no information in this verse that tells us he exercised authority over either the other apostles or the elders. This is all we know of James from the Scriptures. The popular proposition that he was the head of the Jerusalem church is a tradition that has no scriptural basis.

(From my article "Objections to Pastoral Elderships," which can be found on the Apostolic Free Library at www.GloriousChurch.com.

 

[Donnie Gillum]

Bro. Dave, I have often told people that I have more evidence that Peter was the first pastor at Jerusalem rather than James.  Though, I seriously doubt that Peter was the first Pope :-). 

 

Along with your points, here is a quick partial list of some of my observations:

 

Acts – The first portion is focused upon the actions of Peter (not James)

• Peter was the first “spokesman” (not James) mentioned at a meeting, with all the other apostles present, before the Holy Ghost fell (1:15)
• Peter once again was the first “spokesman” (not James) at the first meeting after the Holy Ghost fell 2:14,
• Peter (not James) responded to the crowd’s 1^st question of “What meaneth this?” (2:12)
• and spoke for the twelve (2:14)
• It was Peter (not James) who answered the 2^nd question of “What shall we do?” (2:38)
• It was Peter, instead of John, who answered the crowd’s wondering of the healing of the lame man (3:12)
• It was Peter, instead of John, who answered the rulers when questioned about the healing of the lame man (4:8)
• However, when commanded not to speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter and John both answered (4:19)
• And, when reporting back to their own company, apparently Peter and John both gave report (4:23)
• When laying money at the apostles’ feet, it was Peter (not James) who rebuked  Ananias (5:3)
• Three hours later, it was Peter (not James) who rebuked Ananias’ wife (5:8)
• It was the shadow of Peter (not James) that was desired to overshadow the sick (5:15)
• When (apparently) ALL the apostles were brought before the council and high priest, it is said that Peter (not James) and the other apostles answered v 29

This gives rise to the thought that Peter was the leader (if any) instead of James, or at least the dominant one … or still usually the first to take action (Jn 18:10) or “first responder”

• It was the twelve (not James) that called the multitude together (6:20)
• Peter and John were sent by the rest of the apostles (not James 8:14)
• It was Peter instead of John who rebuked Simon the sorcerer (8:20)
• It was Peter who healed the sick of the palsy (9:34)
• It was Peter who raise Dorcas from the dead (9:40)
• It was Peter (of the seven 11:12), who preached to Cornelius’ household (10:34)
• The first mention of James and the brethren (12:17)
• It was determined that Paul and Barnabas were to go unto the apostles and elders (not James) about this question (15:2)
• After all the disputing, it was Peter who rose up to give an answer with all the other apostles (including James) present (15:7)
• Second mention of James, who now answers and backs up Peter vv (15:13, 14)

1. James gives his “sentence” (15:19
2. Which is to write to them (some decrees)… (15:20)

• The decrees ordained of the apostles and elders (not James) at Jerusalem (16: 4)

 

So, this is what I mean by having more evidence for Peter as the pastor (or at least the leader) of the Jerusalem church rather than James.  (Just for the mention, and I'm sure you realize, this is not to discredit James at all.  It is very evident that he was very influential in his own right and did have leadership qualities.)

Here is what I am wondering: is there any credible 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd etc. century history that states that James was the pastor of the Jerusalem assembly, or are all these proclaiming so just parroting each other, or stating their own assumption that he was?  In other words, where are they getting this “historical documentation”?