The Narrow Path Ministries

I heard Steve say on the radio program March 11'th that because James starts with "to the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad:" that this letter is specifically to Jews (which I would assume Steve is implying national, blood line Jews only) and by implication of how he later defined "firstfruits" in chapter 18 that this is not a general letter to all Christians.

This approach seems wrong to me. It appears to draw a line of distinction in the body of Christ between racial Jews and non-Jewish Christians, which seems to be the opposite of what Apostle Paul tells us (ie Gal 3:28).

Would it not be just as plausible that James is writing to all Christians and just addresses them in a symbolic or figurative manner? Because to say otherwise is to start to divide the word to what might apply to a non-Jewish Christian and a Jewish Christian. To say that the firstfruits mentioned in chapter 18 is "only" to the Jewish Christian, and furthur more as Steve implies, only to the Jewish Christian OF THAT TIME, seems wrong to me.

I have always understood the "firstfruits" mentioned in chapter 1:18 of James to apply to ALL Christians from the Cross to His second coming. It states the firstfruits of His creatures (or creation). I believe this is not trying to provide a distinction between A Jewish Christian and a non-Jewish Christian as Steve is implying, but refering to all Christians who are in Christ prior to His second coming. Is not Christ the firstfruit, and those IN Him are firstfruits of all creation regardless of race?

Please help me understand this strange thing I heard Steve talk about. And it is very possible I missunderstood him.

Thanks
Your brother in Christ
Doug (from Corvallis, OR)

Hi Doug,

I believe that James regarded his ministry to be restricted essentially to the circumcision (Gal.2:9). James was the undisputed leader of Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem, as Paul was of Gentile Christianity in the regions where he labored (1 Cor. 4:15-16).

That Jewish Christians of the diaspora might be regarded as falling within James' special "sphere" does not seem strange to my mind. In 2 Corinthians 10:13-16, Paul mentioned that there were churches that were not within his sphere (I think he meant Judean churches). This does not indicate a mentality of dividing the body of Christ, but only of defining one's sphere of ministry.

There are things Paul said to some of his readers that applied particularly to them. That does not mean that most of his teachings would be irrelevant to other Christians. Similarly, for James to make certain comments to his Jewish Christian readers (e.g., "God has begotten us to be a kind of firstfruits...") does not seem unusual, though the general teaching of the book of James would have relevance to all Christians.

It may be possible that all Christians, in some sense, could be called the "firstfruits" of God's harvest (if, for example, we were to assume that people of other faiths are going to be harvested, without becoming Christians, after the church is complete), but I am not aware of the term being used this way elsewhere, as it is used of Jewish believers in Revelation 14.

This is not a very important matter to me. However, on balance I think the evidence is better for the view that James is writing to Jewish believers than that he is writing to the whole church. This conclusion would have no impact on the relevance of James' moral teachings for all people.

Is not all of creation to be renewed and hence the firstfruits are refering to the Christians in relationship to all creation, as oposed to "other people of other religions" as you are saying?

And to have a particular sphere of ministry as a focus is obvious from the scriptures, but to be "restricted" to that sphere I do not see as obviously as you do brother.

Doug

i just started listening to steve's I corinthians series, and he said that we have to remember that these epistles are letters to specific person(s) and in effect we are reading someone else's mail when we read them.

so i agree with steve that it is not strange that james would have addressed his letter to a specific group; there is no reason to suspect that at the time of the writing James believed he was writing "scripture" that would be used one day by all christians (except Luther!).

TK

So you would say that a non-Jewish believing Christian in the first century (around the time of the writing of Paul's Epistles) would NOT be considered a firstfruit to God? Nor would any Christian of our time be considered a firstfruit? So if I was a greek believing Christian living among Jews in Jerusalem at the time that James was written and read to the Church of that time which I might be attending, I would say to myself... well that is not about me? .... I am not a firstfruit because of my race because I know that James ministry is "restricted" to Jews and that we are to make a distinction between the Body of Christ?

Even if someone has a focus of ministry to a particular grouping of people, the message is the same, and there is no distinction of Jew or Greek AFTER THE CROSS. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation, a firstfruit to God of all creation which is groaing for redemption and renewal of all things. The message in the NT is not boken into parts depending on race. God put the Bible together as one book, with one message....There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither salve nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Amen brothers

Doug

Hi Douglas,

You wrote:

Is not all of creation to be renewed and hence the firstfruits are refering to the Christians in relationship to all creation, as oposed to "other people of other religions" as you are saying?

I see your point here. However, I am still more persuaded of my position from the evidence I suggested.

You wrote:

And to have a particular sphere of ministry as a focus is obvious from the scriptures, but to be "restricted" to that sphere I do not see as obviously as you do brother.

Actually, Paul's comments about spheres of ministry (In 2 Corinthians 10:13-16) suggest that there was a mutual respect for the "territory" of certain missionaries, as Paul insisted that he was not intruding his authority into the sphere pertaining to another man. I don't think these "territories" were jealously guarded (as is sometimes the case today on the mission field), but I still think it more likely that Paul would write, principally, to Gentiles and James would write, principally, to Jews.

While Peter and John are listed (in Galatians 2:9), along with James, as being sent to the circumcision, I believe that Peter's (and perhaps John's) authority was more universally recognized than James', outside the Jewish church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:12), owing to the prominent place Peter and John held among the twelve in the establishing of the church at its inception (along with Peter's role in the Cornelius incident). Therefore, we do find Peter and John, in my opinion, writing to Gentile Christians in their epistles. John's writings even seem to have a somewhat anti-Jewish flavor (e.g., John 8:44/Rev.2:9; 3:9).

By contrast, because of his strict Jewish observance, James was very respected among even the unconverted Jews. While the Jerusalem Jews wished to kill Paul for his obvious sympathies with the Gentiles (Acts 22:21-22), James managed to maintain cordial relations with the Jewish leadership for several decades—apparently by avoiding Gentile associations.

James was so closely associated with the Jews and the Judean church (we never read of him ministering outside Jerusalem) that men from the Jerusalem Church are referred to as being "from James" (Gal.2:12), and Peter wishes for the Jerusalem Christians to report to James concerning Peter's whereabouts (Acts 12:17). Even when James decreed, at the Jerusalem Council, that the Gentiles should continue, essentially, to follow Paul's policies, he added a note of concern that the Gentile believers should avoid giving offense to the Jews in their cities (Acts 15:19-21).

The evidence is strong that James had the concerns of the Jewish Church on his heart to the degree that his reference to "the twelve tribes" (James 1:1) would most naturally be understood to refer to Jewish Christians of the diaspora.

Thanks for your responses Steve,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain how you understand this. I love to talk about our God and His plan for us.

I still think that all the letters written in the NT are to all Christians, even if the orig. letter was intended for a specific grouping of people based on race or location. I believe that you would agree that the overall message is no different after the cross regardless of who wrote it, or who it was specifically written to (ie a Jewish predominant church in Jerusalem or a Gentile church in Asia minor). The message is the same. We are all one in Christ Jesus. Amen brother.

Doug

This is not that difficult. The thing about "firstfruits" that makes them different is only that they are first. They are not necessarily better than later fruits. Firstfruits are just first. There is no doubt at all that Jews who were alive when Jesus walked the earth were the first to hear the gospel. Those who believed the gospel in that group would be the firstfruits of all the people alive on the earth at the time...and into the future until the end of time.

They were not more holy than those who would later believe that Jesus was the Savior. They were just first. No one else can be in that group. They were the branches that did not need to be broken off the olive tree of faith.

"If the first piece {of dough} is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too." Romans 11:16 (NASB)

I agree that even though we read what was written to someone else, we can learn from it.

Blessings,
Lazarus43

James 1:18 "...that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures"

The Greek word for creatures (Ktisma) used in the above verse is "creatures" or "created things", not Jew... not Man...

1 Tim 4:4 is an example of how Ktisma is used as well "For every creature (Ktisma) of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving"

If God had finished James 1:18 with firstfruits and nothing more I could see that it might be referring to Christians of the first century only. Or if he had said "...firstfruits of Man" or "....firstfruits of the Jews" or "...firstfruits of Christians" then I would agree in regards to this being specific to first century Christian.

In James 1:18 we have to ask ourselves, does God tell us what the firstfruits are of? What is the "crop" that is stated in this verse? Man? Jews? Not as I read it. It states "creatures" or "created things". As I understand it we are all looking forward to the return of Christ and the renewal of all created things (Rev 21.....a new heaven and new earth), and if the crop that is being spoken about is "all created things" as opposed to man or Jew, than all Christians from the cross to return of Christ are "firstfruits" in Christ.

Let me help explain. If a large field (crop) is made of 100 rows of wheat and we are to take the firstfruits of that crop, lets say 1 row and it takes us an entire day to harvest that 1 row. Is not the wheat that was gathered in the morning as well as the wheat gathered in the late afternoon or evening considered the firstfruits of the crop? And if Christ is the firstfruits and we are a kind of firstfruits of His creatures (or created things) IN Christ, would not the first century Christian as well as Christian today be considered firstfruits if the crop is the renewal of all created things?

I cannot help but read the NT from the perspective that one author (God) wrote it to one group of people (Christians). I do realize that the James was sent to preach to the Jews and Paul was sent to the gentiles, and that each had his sphere of ministry, but I always thought that the message was the same. Even though James was writing to Jewish Christians, which I do not deny, I believe God intended it for all Christians of the entire Church age, as with all the other NT books.

I guess the understanding of "firstfruits" spoken of in James 1:18 comes down to how you want to interpret Ktisma. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe James knew that the Jewish Christians of his time were to be the first of many Christians to come over the next 2000+ years and that he used the word Ktisma because it sounded good? I don't know, since I am not a Greek scholar, maybe Ktisma is referring only to Christians in this verse? If God wanted to get across the idea of firstfruits in regards to a crop of men alone, why not use that word? I am just searching for the truth, and though this may seem silly to probably most of you reading this, I believe that God does not use words without meaning, and that He used Ktisma for a reason.



Your fellow brother in Christ Jesus

Doug

Doug,

I agree with you. Here is a passage from Romans that supports your view.

Rom 8:18-23
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Speaking of the resurrection, it states that the "sons of God" (Christians) will first be revealed (firstfruits), then all of God's creation will follow and share in the same glorious liberty with the children of God.

Todd