IT will be observed, no doubt, by all readers, that the most important
inquiry suggested in the outset of the most of these apostolic
biographies, is about the name and personal identification of the
individual subject of each life. This difficulty is connected with
peculiarities of those ancient times and half-refined nations, that
may not, perhaps, be very readily appreciated by those who have
been accustomed only to the definite nomenclature of families and
individuals, which is universally adopted among civilized nations at
the present day. With all the refined nations of European race, the
last part of a person’s name marks his family, and is supposed to have
been borne by his father, and by his ancestors, from the time when
family names were first adopted. The former part of his name, with
equal definiteness, marks the individual; and generally remains fixed
from the time when he first received his name. Whenever any change
takes place in any part of his appellation, it is generally done in
such a formal and permanent mode, as never to make any occasion for
confusion in respect to the individual, among those concerned with him.
But no such decisive limitation of names to persons, prevailed among
even the most refined nations of the apostolic age. The name given to
a child at birth, indeed, was very uniformly retained through life;
but as to the other parts of his appellation, it was taken, according
to circumstances, chance or caprice, from the common name of his
father,――from some personal peculiarity,――from his business,――from
his general character,――or from some particular incident in his life.
The name thus acquired, to distinguish him ♦from others bearing his
former name, was used either in connection with that, or without; and
sometimes two or more such distinctive appellations belonged to the
same man, all or any of which were used together with the former, or
separate from it, without any definite rule of application. To those
acquainted with the individual so variously named, and contemporary
with him, no confusion was made by this multiplicity of words; and
when anything was recorded respecting him, it was done with the perfect
assurance, that all who then knew him, would find no difficulty in
respect to his personal identity, however he might he mentioned. But
in later ages, when the personal knowledge of all these individual
distinctions has been entirely lost, great difficulties necessarily
arise on these points,――difficulties which, after tasking historical
and philological criticism to the highest efforts, in order to settle
the facts, are, for the most part, left in absolute uncertainty.
Thus, in respect to the twelve apostles, it will be noticed, that this
confusion of names throws great doubt over many important questions.
Among some of them, too, these difficulties are partly owing to other
causes. Their names were originally given to them, in the peculiar
language of Palestine; and in the extension of their labors and fame,
to people of different languages, of a very opposite character, their
names were forced to undergo new distortions, by being variously
translated, or changed in termination; and many of the original Hebrew
sounds, in consequence of being altogether unpronounceable by Greeks
and Romans, were variously exchanged for softer and smoother ones,
which, in their dissimilar forms, would lose almost all perceptible
traces of identity with each other, or with the original word.
♦ replace word omitted from text “from”
These difficulties are in no case quite so prominent and serious as in
regard to the apostle who is the subject of this particular biography.
Bearing the same name with the elder son of Zebedee, he was of course
necessarily designated by some additional title, to distinguish him
from the other great apostle James. This title was not always the same,
nor was it uniform in its principle of selection. On all the apostolic
lists, he is designated by a reference to the name of his father, as is
the first James. As the person first mentioned by this name is called
James, the son of Zebedee, the second is called James, the son of
Alpheus; nor is there, in the enumeration of the apostles by Matthew,
Mark or Luke, any reference to another distinctive appellation of this
James. But in one passage of Mark’s account of the crucifixion, it
is mentioned, that among the women present, was Mary the mother of
James the _Little_, and of Joses. In what sense this word _little_ is
applied,――whether of age, size, or dignity,――it is utterly impossible
to ascertain at this day; for the original word is known to have been
applied to persons, in every one of these senses, even in the New
Testament. But, however this may be, a serious question arises, whether
this James the Little was actually the same person as the James, called,
on the apostolic lists, the son of Alpheus. In the corresponding
passage in John’s gospel, this same Mary is called Mary the wife of
_Clopas_; and by Matthew and Mark, the same James is mentioned as the
brother of Joses, Juda, and Simon. In the apostolic lists given by
Luke, both in his gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, Juda is also
called “the brother of James;” and in his brief general epistle, the
same apostle calls himself “the brother of James.” In the beginning
of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul, describing his own reception
at Jerusalem, calls him “James, the brother of our Lord;” and by
Matthew and Mark, he, with his brothers, Joses, Juda and Simon, is
also called the brother of Jesus. From all these seemingly opposite
and irreconcilable statements, arise three inquiries, which can, it
is believed, be so answered, as to attribute to the subject of this
article every one of the circumstances connected with _James_, in these
different stories.
_James, the Little._――This adjective is here applied to him in
the positive degree, because it is so in the original Greek,
[Ιακωβος ὁ μικρος, Mark xv. 40,] and this expression too, is
in accordance with English forms of expression. The comparative
form, “James, the _Less_,” seems to have originated in the
Latin Vulgate, “Jacobus Minor,” which may be well enough in that
language; but in English, there is no reason why the original
word should not be literally and faithfully expressed. The Greek
original of Mark, calls him “James, the _Little_,” which implies
simply, that he was a _little_ man; whether little in size, or
age, or dignity, every one is left to guess for himself;――but
it is more accordant with usage, in respect to such nicknames,
in those times, to suppose that he was a short man, and was
thus named to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, who
was probably taller. The term thus applied by Mark, would be
understood by all to whom he wrote, and implied no disparagement
to his mental eminence. But the term applied, in the sense of
a smaller dignity, is so slighting to the character of James,
who to the last day of his life, maintained, according to both
Christian and Jewish history, the most exalted fame for religion
and intellectual worth,――that it must have struck all who heard
it thus used, as a term altogether unjust to his true eminence.
His weight of character in the councils of the apostles, soon
after the ascension, and the manner in which he is alluded to in
the accounts of his death, make it very improbable that he was
_younger_ than the other James.
First: Was James the son of _Alpheus_ the same person as James the son
of _Clopas_? The main argument for the identification of these names,
rests upon the similarity of the consonants in the original Hebrew
word which represents them both, and which, according to the fancy of a
writer, might be represented in Greek, either by the letters of Alpheus
or of Clopas. This proof, of course, can be fully appreciated only by
those who are familiar with the power of the letters of the oriental
languages, and know the variety of modes in which they are frequently
given in the Greek, and other European languages. The convertibility of
certain harsh sounds of the dialects of southwestern Asia, into either
hard consonants, or smooth vowel utterances, is sufficiently well-known
to Biblical scholars, to make the change here supposed appear perfectly
probable and natural to them. It will be observed by common readers,
that all the consonants in the two words are exactly the same, except
that _Clopas_ has a hard C, or K, in the beginning, and that Alpheus
has the letter P aspirated by an H, following it. Now, both of these
differences can, by a reference to the original Hebrew word, be shown
to be only the results of the different modes of expressing the same
Hebrew letters; and the words thus expressed may, by the established
rules of etymology, be referred to the same oriental root. These two
names, then, _Alpheus_ and _Clopas_, may be safely assigned to the same
person; and Mary the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the Little,
and of Joses, was, no doubt, the mother of him who is called “James the
son of Alpheus.”
_Clopas and Alpheus._――It should be noticed, that in the common
translation of the New Testament, the former of these two words is
very unjustifiably expressed by Cleophas, whereas the original (John
xix. 25,) is simply Κλωπας. (_Clopas._) This is a totally different
name from _Cleopas_, (Luke xxiv. 18, Κλεοπας,) which is probably Greek
in its origin, and abridged from _Cleopater_, (Κλεοπατρος,) just as
Anti_pas_ from Anti_pater_, and many other similar instances, in which
the Hellenizing Jews abridged the terminations of Greek and Roman words,
to suit the genius of the Hebrew tongue. But _Clopas_, being very
differently spelt in the Greek, must be traced to another source; and
the circumstances which connect it with the name _Alpheus_, suggesting
that, like that, it might have a Hebrew origin, directs the inquirer to
the original form of that word. The Hebrew חלפא (HHALPHA) may be taken
as the word from which both are derived; each being such an expression
of the original, as the different writers might choose for its fair
representation. The first letter in the word, ח, (_hhaith_,) has in
Hebrew two entirely distinct sounds; one a strong guttural H, and
the other a deeply aspirated KH. These are represented in Arabic by
two different letters, but in Hebrew, a single character is used to
designate both; consequently the names which contain this letter, may
be represented in Greek and other languages, by two different letters,
according as they were pronounced; and where the original word which
contained it, was sounded differently, by different persons, under
different circumstances, varying its pronunciation with the times and
the fashion, even in the same word, it would be differently expressed
in Greek. Any person familiar with the peculiar changes made in those
Old Testament names which are quoted in the New, will easily apprehend
the possibility of such a variation in this. Thus, in Stephen’s speech,
(Acts vii.) Haran is called Charran; and other changes of the same
sort occur in the same chapter. The name Anna, (Luke ii. 36,) is the
same with Hannah, (1 Samuel i. 2,) which in the Hebrew has this same
strongly aspirated H, that begins the word in question,――and the same
too, which in Acts vii. 2, 4, is changed into the strong Greek _Ch_;
while all its harshness is lost, and the whole aspiration removed, in
_Anna_. These instances, taken out of many similar ones, may justify to
common readers, the seemingly great change of letters in the beginning
of Alpheus and Clopas. The other changes of vowels are of no account,
since in the oriental languages particularly, these are not fixed parts
of the word, but mere _modes_ of uttering the consonants, and vary
throughout the verbs and nouns, in almost every inflexion these parts
of speech undergo. These therefore, are not considered radical or
essential parts of the word, and are never taken into consideration
in tracing a word from one language to another,――the consonants being
the fixed parts on which etymology depends. The change also from the
aspirate _Ph_, to the smooth mute P, is also so very common in the
oriental languages, and even in the Greek, that it need not be regarded
in identifying the word.
Taking into consideration then, the striking and perfect
affinities of the two words, and adding to these the great body
of presumptive proofs, drawn from the other circumstances that
show or suggest the identity of persons,――and noticing moreover,
the circumstance, that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of
Alpheus, they never speak of Clopas,――and that John, who alone
uses the name Clopas, never mentions Alpheus,――it seems very
reasonable to adopt the conclusion, that the last evangelist
means the same person as the former.
Second: Was James the son of Alpheus the same person as “James, the
brother of our Lord?” An affirmative answer to this question seems to
be required by the fact, that Mary the wife of Clopas is named as the
mother of James and Joses; and elsewhere, James and Joses, and Juda
and Simon, are called the brothers of Jesus. It should be understood
that the word “_brother_” is used in the scriptures often, to imply
a relationship much less close than that of the children of the same
father and mother. “Cousins” are called “brothers” in more cases than
one, and the oriental mode of maintaining family relationship closely
through several generations, made it very common to consider those
who were the _children of brothers_, as being themselves _brothers_;
and to those familiar with this extension of the term, it would not
necessarily imply anything more. In the case alluded to, all those to
whom the narratives and other statements containing the expression,
“James the brother of our Lord,” were first addressed, being well
acquainted with the precise nature of this relationship, would find
no difficulty whatever in such a use of words. The nature of his
relationship to Jesus seems to have been that of cousin, whether by the
father’s side or mother’s, is very doubtful. By John indeed, Mary the
wife of Clopas is called the _sister_ of the mother of Jesus; but it
will seem reasonable enough to suppose,――since two sisters, daughters
of the same parents, could hardly bear the same name,――that Mary the
mother of James, must have been only the sister-in-law of the mother of
Jesus, either the wife of her brother, or the sister of her husband; or,
in perfect conformity with this use of the term “sister,” she may have
been only a cousin or some such relation.
The third question which has been originated from these various
statements,――whether James, the brother of Jesus and the author of
the epistle, was an APOSTLE,――must, of course, be answered in the
affirmative, if the two former points have been correctly settled.
All the opinions on these points are fully given and discussed
by Michaelis, in his Introduction to the epistle of James. He
states five different suppositions which have been advanced
respecting the relationship borne to Jesus by those who are in
the New Testament called his brothers. 1. That they were the
sons of Joseph, by a former wife. 2. That they were the sons
of Joseph, by Mary the mother of Jesus. 3. That they were the
sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother, to whom he was obliged
to raise up children according to the laws of Moses. 4. That
this deceased brother of Joseph, to whom the laws required
him to raise up issue, was Alpheus. 5. That they were brothers
of Christ, not in the strict sense of the word, but in a more
lax sense, namely, in that of cousin, or relation in general,
agreeably to the usage of this word in the Hebrew language.
(Genesis xiv. 16: xiii. 8: xxix. 12, 15: 2 Samuel xix. 13:
Numbers viii. 26: xvi. 10: Nehemiah iii. 1.) This opinion which
has been here adopted, was first advanced by Jerome, and has
been very generally received since his time; though the first
of the five was supported by the most ancient of the Fathers.
Michaelis very clearly refutes all, except the first and the
fifth, between which he does not decide; mentioning, however,
that though he had been early taught to respect the latter, as
the right one, he had since become more favorable to the first.
The earliest statement made concerning these relations of Jesus, is by
John, who, in giving an account of the visit made by Jesus to Jerusalem,
at the feast of the tabernacles, mentions, that the brethren of Jesus
did not believe in him, but, in a rather sneering tone, urged him to
go up to the feast, and display himself, that the disciples who had
formerly there followed him, might have an opportunity to confirm their
faith by the sight of some new miracle done by him. Speaking to him in
a very decidedly commanding tone, they said, “Depart hence, and go into
Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For
there is no man that does anything in secret, while he himself seeks to
be widely known; if thou do these things, show thyself to the world.”
The whole tenor of this speech shows a spirit certainly very far from
a just appreciation of the character of their divine brother; and the
base, sordid motives, which they impute to him as ruling principles of
action, were little less than insults to the pure, high spirit, which
lifted him so far above their comprehension. The reply which Jesus
made to their taunting address, contained a decided rebuke of their
presumption in thus attacking his motives. “My time is not yet come,
but yours is always ready. The world can not hate you, but me it hates,
because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go ye up to this
feast; but I am not going yet; for my time is not yet fully come.” They
might always go where mere inclination directed them, nor was there
any occasion to refer to any higher object. But a mighty scheme was
connected with his movements, to which he directed every action. In his
great work, he had already exposed himself to the hatred of the wicked,
and his movements were now checked by a regard to the proper time
for exposing himself to it; and when that time should come, he would
unhesitatingly meet the results.
By a passage in Mark’s gospel, it appears also, that at the first
beginning of the ministry of Jesus, his relations generally were so
little prepared for a full revelation of the character and destiny
of him with whom they had long lived so familiarly as a brother and
an intimate, that they viewed with the most disagreeable surprise and
astonishment, his remarkable proceedings, in going from place to place
with his disciples,――neglecting the business to which he had been
educated, and deserting his family friends,――preaching to vast throngs
of wondering people, and performing strange works of kindness to those
who seemed to have no sort of claim on his attention. Distressed at
these strange actions, they could form no conclusion about his conduct
that seemed so reasonable and charitable, as that he was beside himself,
and needed to be confined, to prevent him from doing mischief to
himself and others, by his seemingly extravagant and distracted conduct.
“And they came out to lay hold on him, for they said ‘He is beside
himself.’” With this very purpose, as it seems, his brothers and family
relations had come to urge and persuade him back to their home if
possible, and stood without, utterly unable to get near him, on account
of the throngs of hearers and beholders that had beset him. They were
therefore obliged to send him word, begging him to stop his discourse
and come out to them, because they wanted to see him. The request was
therefore passed along from mouth to mouth, in the crowd, till at last
those who sat next to Jesus communicated the message to him,――“Behold
thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with
thee.” Jesus fully apprehending the nature of the business on which
their ill-discerning regard had brought them thither, only suspended
the train of his discourse to make such a remark as would impress all
with the just idea of the value which he set upon earthly affections,
which were liable to operate as hindrances to him in the great work
to which he had been devoted; and to convince them how much higher and
stronger was the place in his affections held by those who had joined
themselves to him for life and for death, to promote the cause of God,
and to do with him the will of his Father in heaven,――in the striking
language of inquiry, he said, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then
looking with an expression of deep affection around, on those who sat
near him, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and
mother.” It appears by this remark, as well as by another passage, that
he had not only brothers, but sisters, who lived at Nazareth at that
time, and were well known as his relations. No mention however is any
where made of his father; so that it would appear that Joseph was now
dead.
This remarkable faithlessness on the part of the brothers of Jesus,
may be thought to present an insuperable difficulty in the way of the
supposition that any of them could have been numbered with the apostles.
But great as seems to have been their error, it hardly exceeded many
that were made by his most select followers, even to the time of his
ascension. All the apostles may be considered to have been in a great
measure unbelievers, until the descent of the Holy Spirit,――for until
that time, on no occasion did one of them manifest a true faith in the
words of Jesus. Times almost without number, did he declare to them
that he should rise from the dead; but notwithstanding this assertion
was so often made to them in the most distinct and solemn manner, not
one of them put the slightest confidence in his words, or believed
that he would ever appear to them again after his crucifixion. Not
even the story of his resurrection, repeatedly and solemnly attested by
the women and others, could overcome their faithlessness; so that when
the risen Lord, whose words they had so little heeded, came into their
presence, moved with a just and holy anger, “he upbraided them with
their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not those
who had seen him after he was risen.” So that his brothers at this
early period, can not be considered any worse off than the rest of
those who knew and loved him best; and if any are disposed to oppose
the view that his brethren were apostles, by quoting the words of John,
that “neither did his brethren believe in him,” a triumphant retort may
be found in the fact, that NEITHER DID HIS APOSTLES BELIEVE IN HIM.
There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those who were
apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses, who is nowhere
mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been others still, whose
names are not given; for, in the account given, in the first chapter
of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven apostles, there
were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and
his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may have had several other
cousins, who followed his fortunes, though they were not considered by
him, qualified to rank among his chosen apostles. But a very prominent
objection to the notion that they were the children of his mother,
with whom they are mentioned in such close connection,――is, that when
Jesus was on the cross, he commended her to the care of John, his
beloved disciple, as though she were destitute of any immediate natural
protector; and certainly, if she had at that time several sons living,
who were full-grown, she could not have needed to be intrusted thus to
the kindness of one who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but
would, of course, have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support,
so long as her sons could have worked for her. These also may have
been those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him
beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of
those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his brethren,――James,
Juda, Joses and Simon.
Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the gospels
take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the Acts of
the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is mentioned
with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the apostolic
writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a person of high
standing and great importance, and his opinions are given in such a
manner as to convey the impression that they had great weight in the
regulation of the apostolic doings. This is particularly evident in
the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles where his words are given,
which is in the account of the consultation at Jerusalem about the
great question of communion between the circumcised and uncircumcised.
On this occasion, James is mentioned in such a way as to make it
evident that he was considered the most prominent among those who were
zealous for the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been
by all such, regarded in the light of a leader, since his decision
seems to have been esteemed by them as a sort of law; and the perfect
acquiescence of even the most troublesome in the course which he
recommended, is a proof of his predominant influence. The tone and
style of the address itself, also imply that the speaker thought he had
good reason to believe that others were looking to him in particular,
for the decision which should regulate their opinions on this doubtful
question. After Simon Peter, as the great chief of the apostles, had
first expressed his opinion on the question under discussion, and had
referred to his own inspired divine revelations of the will of God in
respect to the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas next gave a full account
of their operations, and of the signs and wonders with which God had
followed their labors.
After the full exposition made by Paul and Barnabas, of all their
conduct, James arose to make his reply in behalf of the close adherents
of Mosaic forms, and said, “Men and brethren! listen to me. Simeon
has set forth in what manner God did first condescend to take from
the heathen a people for his name. And with this, all the words of the
prophets harmonize, as it is written, ‘After these things I will turn
back, and will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will both
rebuild its ruins and erect it again, IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND
may seek out the Lord, together with all the heathen who are called
by my name, saith the Lord who made all things.’ ‘Well known to God
are all his works from eternity.’ So I think that we ought not to make
trouble for those who have turned from the heathen, to God; but that
we should direct them to refrain from things that have been offered
unto idols, and from fornication, and from what has been strangled, and
from blood. For Moses has, from ancient generations, in these cities,
those who make him known,――his law being read every sabbath day.” This
opinion, formed and delivered in a truly Christian spirit of compromise,
seems to have had the effect of a permanent decision; and the great
leader of the rigid Judaizers, having thus renounced all opposition
to the adoption of the converted heathen into full and open Christian
communion, though without the seals of the Mosaic covenant,――all those
who had originated this vexatious question, ceased their attempts
to distract the harmony of the apostles; and the united opinions of
the great apostolic chief, who had first opened the gates of Christ’s
kingdom to the heathen, and of the eminent defender of Mosaic forms,
so silenced all discussion, that thenceforth these opinions, thus fully
expressed, became the common law of the Christian churches, throughout
the world, in all ages.
This address of James (Acts xv. 13‒21.) may justly be pronounced
the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the
New Testament, of equal length,――almost every verse in it
containing some point, which has been made the subject of some
dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this
discourse:――“It consists of three parts;――the _Exordium_, (verse
13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated
to secure the good-will of his auditors;――the _Statement_,
(verses 16‒18,) containing also a confirmation of it from the
prophets, and the reason;――the _Proposition_, (verses 19‒20,)
that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are
only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to
the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.”
_Simeon._ (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter’s first name,
has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant,
since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of
Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the
person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are
the same in his case as in Peter’s. But Simeon (Συμεων) and
Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged
form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the
former.――This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless
meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in
general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.
_Has condescended to take._ Common translation: “did visit them
to take,” &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the
meaning which Bretschneider has given to επισκεπτομαι, _benigne
voluit_, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian
version.
_Harmonize._ (verse 15.) The original (συμφωνοῦσιν) refers
in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of
accordance in _sound_, (_symphony_,) and thence by a metonymy
is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy
is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in
the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the
Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or
the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is
describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that
the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that
all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James _accomodates_ to the
present purpose, and _applies_ to the propagation of the gospel
among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian
community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full
exegesis of this passage.)
_Well known to God are all his works._ These words have been
made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators,
who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their
connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new
and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but
have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of
the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole
emphasis of the sentence upon the word “_all_,”――“Known unto
God are _all_ his works from the beginning of ages.” James is
arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not
only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;――not to one nation
merely, but to _all_ his creatures. “Thus saith the Lord who
makes (or does) _all_ things.” The original Hebrew of the
prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a
circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in
this ♦_accommodation_ of the words to this form and purpose.
♦ “accomodation” replaced with “accommodation”
_So I think_, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted
to find in the original of this verb (κρινω) a peculiar force,
implying that James announced his decision with a kind of
judicial emphasis, in the character of “Bishop of Jerusalem.”
The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield’s
numerous references to classical authority for the simple
meaning of “think.” The difficulties in the twentieth verse are
so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such
protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators,
that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.
The great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown
in several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the
apostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release
from prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark,
he, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to
tell _James_ and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was
altogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be
considered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any
message intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In
the same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish
Peter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the
individual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.
But no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked,
as in Paul’s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents
connected with them. He there mentions “James, the brother of our
Lord,” in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the
apostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above
adduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus,
was an apostle. Paul’s words are, “Other of the apostles, (besides
Peter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord’s brother;” an expression
which all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that
this James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen
years after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James,
and, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those
three whom he mentions by name. He says, “When James, Cephas, and
John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to
me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This
very peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so
strange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that
the _Cephas_ here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol,
Peter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he
was not Peter,――a notion which might seem plausible at first glance,
from the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul
has been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname,
while in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word,
Cephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except
as showing that in this connection there was something which suggested
a preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the
two other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very
peculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained
by a consideration of the subject in connection with which these
personages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of
the sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important
person to be quoted in reference to Paul’s reception, while the
dissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand,
being himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his
having been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel,
was, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul’s views, of the
noble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of
really less importance in Paul’s statement, than the name of James, who
was everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being
mentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident
that the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties,
and heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.
The especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic
forms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same
epistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed
that it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian
brethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic
institutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every
reasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly
hindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute
adherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code,
were required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly
reverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise
to think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits
would be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in
life they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings
of Christ’s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his
accordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy,
yet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go
to all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his
readiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of
Jewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that
the original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous
observance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the
Levitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with
various defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious
Jew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to
Peter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic
associate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions
of needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief
ministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been
narrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first
part of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple,
gone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving
Gentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any
liability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of
Levitical purity,――yet when some persons came down from ♦Jerusalem,
from James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the
strict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James
had been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter,
and to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the
way of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his
own character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who
so faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this
might be, Peter’s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending
James, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not
have refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct,
which he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the
slightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion
is reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of
expediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great
associate, on points of Levitical law.
♦ “Jerasalem” replaced with “Jerusalem”