Why isn’t (3) Jesus the preferred interpretation? This is the one that intrigues me the most.

RJS,
First, why would he need to be so cryptic and why in this context?
Second, “he does not resist you” is present tense and it would have been more likely to have been said in some way or shape in a past tense. (I’m avoiding aspectual theory here because that complicates it a bit.) Well, you’ll want to know what the heck I’m talking about: a present doesn’t mean “now” or “in the present moment” but it depicts an action that is incompleted from the viewpoint of the author, while an aorist would simply state a fact from the perspective of a global orientation (that something happens not when or how it happens/happened). An imperfect tense would probably — scholars differ here — see it as incompleted action in the past (some call it defective aspect)
In short, that present tense makes it unlikely — in my view — that Jesus is in mind. I would have expected either an aorist or an imperfect for Jesus.

Scot,
Thanks. On the Greek – I’m working on it, but certainly don’t know enough to argue any position, I just listen or read those who know. But I do appreciate the detail.
On the why so cryptic… is it possible that this phrase “You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” is a phrase that would have resonated with James’s audience? Perhaps it is a shorthand for something that would have had immediate meaning in their context. This is why the idea that it refers to Jesus intrigues me in thinking about the messianic Jewish community of the 1st century.

RJS,
Yes, if it refers to Christ it would resonate with them. It intrigues me, too, but I’m unconvinced for grammatical/syntactical reasons. Why not say it directly? No other text is cryptic like this in James with respect to Christ.
“Righteous One” is used for Christ in early sermons. That’s what counts for this one.

The Greek there seems to make #3 the most likely. Besides, in the immediate context before this James is warning the rich about their abuse of the poor; this kind of language would fit well with the prophetic speech in the OT (in terms of calling out sin); the righteous man know probably stands for the righteous saints in the new covenant (i.e., the one under Christ).
Is it possible that he is actually referring to a specific person that was killed by them?
Or — just to throw in as a possibility — is it possible that this is about Jesus but bringing in the fact that he, post-death and resurrected, is not actively punishing them when he could be justly? I have not heard this theory, but it would explain the singular-masculine and present-tense usage in the verse.