The epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record,
indeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists
of his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that
his residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of
apostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve
had first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special
calls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the
apostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north
and south, “preaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name,
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” and bearing witness of his
works, thence, “through Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part
of the earth,” there was still needed one, who, highly “indued with
power from on high,” might remain in that city to which all the sons of
Israel, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light.
There too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian
faith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the
great founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still
an important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that
station the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and
blameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at
once for the bold maintenance of his Master’s commission, and for the
successful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of
the ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout
his life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account
of his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is
some reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles
who assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of
character, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear
which Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea
of a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion
is furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the _brethren_ of
Jesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as
assuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right
to control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed,
according to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had
been older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James
was one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any
rate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those
who are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means
of conjecture on this point.
From the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which
he had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated
the ripe honors of a “righteous” name upon his hoary head, James was
now called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient
prophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which
so many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs.
The fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so
blameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there
any thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion
upon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident
in Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and
acquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear
account of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own
merit by being given entire.
The account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James,
must have happened during Paul’s imprisonment, and is delivered in the
following words:――“The emperor, being informed of the death of Festus,
sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as
we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and
very ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we
have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their
judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking
he had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus
was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James,
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where
they were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to
death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most
learned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent
therefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to
Ananus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet
Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that
Ananus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus,
approving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus,
threatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took
away from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months,
and appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.” From this
account of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a
Christian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that
he was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very
different sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean
high priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his
offense by the loss of his office.
This translation is taken from Marsh’s Michaelis, (Introduction,
Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish
Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)
This however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers
give of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian
of the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with
minute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting
than the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the
same time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of
its interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to
pervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of
the whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown
in other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for
the sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their
notions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place
here, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own
interesting character.
“James, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his
mother’s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any
creature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;――he
anointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only
it was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but
only linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen
upon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till
his knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel.
On account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and
Oblias, which signifies ‘the people’s fortress.’ Then, after describing
the divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account
states, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees,
came to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of
the temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to
have juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted
on the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye question
me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right
hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ With this
declaration, many were satisfied, and cried ‘Hosanna to the Son of
David.’ But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what
they had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then
cried out, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.’ They went
up, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, ‘Let
us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he did not
die with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, ‘I entreat, O Lord
God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And
while they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab,
spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, ‘Cease; what do ye?
Justus prays for us.’ But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a
lever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the
head. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place,
and his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.”
This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom
alone we owe its preservation,――the works of the original author
being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by
other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of
the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much
indebted in similar instances.
The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be
appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291.
Marsh’s translation.)
“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and
fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus,
to ♦which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion,
that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did
not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference
than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop,
and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the
preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which
relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare
from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it
would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided
part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought
of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the
church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave
it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years
after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent
likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted
both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost
respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed
the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”
♦ “whieh” replaced with “which”
Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second
apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and
haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he
added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother
and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and
fate were equally like his,――a testimony which sealed anew the truth
of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his
last great earthly work:――“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet
he doth not resist you.”