This is supposed to have been written by James the son of Alpheus the brother (or kinsman) of our Lord. It is called a General Epistle, because written not to a particular person or church, but to all the converted Israelites. Herein the apostle reproves that antinomian spirit, which had even then infected many, who had perverted the glorious doctrine of justification by faith into an occasion of licentiousness. He likewise comforts the true believers under their sufferings, and reminds them of the judgments that were approaching.
1. To patience, enduring outward, conquering inward, temptations, 2-15
2. Considering the goodness of God, 16-18 To be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
And these three are,
1. Proposed, 19-21
2. Treated of at large:
a. Let hearing be joined with practice, 22-26 Particularly with bridling the tongue, 26 With mercy and purity, 27 Without respect of persons, James 2:1-13 And so faith universally with works, 14-26
c. Let anger, with all the other passions, be restrained, 13- James 4:1-17
3. To patience again:
a. Confirmed by the coming of the judge, in which draws near, The calamity of the wicked, James 5:1-6 The deliverance of the righteous, 7-12
b. Nourished by prayer, 13-18
III. The conclusion, 19,20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the General Epistle of James.
CLA_JAM.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
THERE have been more doubts, and more diversity of opinion, concerning the author of this epistle, and the time in which it was written, than about most other parts of the New Testament. To enter at large into a discussion of the opinions of ancient and modern writers on this subject would tend but little to the establishment of truth, or to the edification of the reader. Lardner, Michaelis, and Macknight, have entered considerably into the controversy relative to the author, the time, and the canonical authority of this book; and to them the reader who wishes to see the difficulties with which the subject is pressed may have recourse.
This epistle, with those of Peter, John, and Jude, is termed catholic, καθολικη, from κατα, through, and ολος, the whole; for the application of which term Œcumenius, in cap. i. Jacobi, gives the following reason: καθολικαι λεγονται αυται, οιονει εγκυκλιοι. ου γαρ
αφωρισμενως εθνει ενι η πολει, αλλα καθολου τοις πιστοις
“These epistles are called catholic, universal, or circular, because they were not written to one nation or city, but to believers everywhere.” Yet, as these epistles had some difficulty at first to get into general circulation, but at last were everywhere received, it is more likely that they obtained the term catholic from the circumstance of their being at last universally acknowledged as canonical; so that the word catholic is to be understood here in the same sense as canonical.
Who the writer of the epistle in question was, is difficult to say; all that we know certainly is, from his own words, that his name was James, and that he was a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus. Two persons of this name are mentioned in the New Testament; James the son of Zebedee, called also James the elder; and James tou mikrou, the less or the little one, called the son of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord: but whether one of these, or if one of them, which, or whether one of the same name different from both, are points that cannot be satisfactorily determined. Michaelis, who has examined the subject with his usual ability, leaves the matter in doubt; but leans to the opinion that James the son of Zebedee was the author, and that this epistle was written before any of those in the New Testament. Other great authorities ascribe it to James, called the brother of our Lord, who was president, or bishop, of the Church in Jerusalem. Even allowing this opinion to be correct, it is not agreed in what sense James is called our Lord’s brother, there being four or five different opinions concerning the meaning of this term. From Matthew 13:55, 56, we learn that there were four persons called brethren of our Lord: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” Now, it is generally allowed that the James here is the author of this epistle, and the Jude or Judas, mentioned with him, the author of that which stands last in this collection. But with respect to the meaning of the term brother, as here used, it will be necessary to state the opinions of learned men:—
1. It is supposed that these were children of Joseph, by a former marriage; this is a very ancient opinion; as there is nothing improbable in the supposition that Joseph was a widower when he married the blessed virgin.
2. They are supposed to have been children of Joseph and his wife Mary; all born after the birth of our Lord. This is an opinion extremely probable: see some reasons for it in the note on Matthew 13:56; see also on Matthew 1:25.
3. That they were called our Lord’s brethren, because children of Joseph by the wife of one of his brothers, who had died childless, and whose widow Joseph took, according to the Mosaic law, to raise up seed to his deceased brother. This is very unlikely, because, in this case, it would have been only requisite for Joseph to have had one male by his brother’s wife; but here we find four, besides several sisters.
4. That Cleophas, called also Alpheus, married a sister of the blessed virgin, called also Mary, by whom he had the above issue; and that these were called brethren of our Lord, from the common custom among the Hebrews, to term all the more immediately cognate branches of the same family, brothers’ and sisters’ children, i.e. cousins-german, brethren. These, therefore, being aunt’s children of our Lord, are, according to this usage, called his brethren. The first and second of these opinions appear to me the most probable; though most modern writers are of the latter opinion.
That of the two James’s, James the less was the author of this epistle, Dr. Macknight thinks, following Lardner and others, is incontestable: I shall quote his abridgment of Lardner’s arguments; but the point in question is not, in my opinion, made out by any of these writers.
“In the catalogue of the apostles, Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; we find two persons of the name of James; the first was the son of Zebedee, Matthew 10:2; the second in all the catalogues is called the son of Alpheus: one of these apostles is called, Galatians 1:19, the Lord’s brother. Wherefore, as there were only twelve apostles, and as James the son of Zebedee, so far as we know, was in no respect related to our Lord, the apostle called James, the Lord’s brother, must have been James the son of Alpheus, called also James the less or younger, whose relation to Christ will appear by comparing Mark 15:40, with John 19:25. In the former passage, Mark, speaking of the women who were present at the crucifixion, says: ‘There were also women looking on afar off, among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.’ In the latter passage, John, speaking of the same women, says: ‘There stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen:’ wherefore, our Lord’s mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, mentioned by John, is in all probability the person whom Mark calls Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses; consequently, her sons, James and Joses, were our Lord’s cousins-german by his mother. And as the Hebrews called all near relations brethren, it is more than probable that James the son of Alpheus, who was our Lord’s cousin-german, is James the Lord’s brother, mentioned Galatians 1:19. Three circumstances confirm this opinion: 1. James and Joses, the sons of Mary, our Lord’s mother’s sister, are expressly called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3. 2. James, the son of our Lord’s mother’s sister, being distinguished from another James by the appellation of the less, Mark 15:40, there is good reason to suppose that he is the James whom Mark, in his catalogue, distinguishes from James the son of Zebedee, by the appellation of the son of Alpheus. It is true, Mary the mother of James and of Joses, is called the wife of Cleophas, John 19:25: but Cleophas and Alpheus are the same name differently pronounced; the one according to the Hebrew, and the other according to the Greek, orthography. 3. Of the persons called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, there are three mentioned in the catalogue as APOSTLES: James, and Simon, and Judas. They, I suppose, are the brethren of the Lord, who are said, as apostles, to have had a right to lead about a sister or a wife, &c.; 1 Corinthians 9:5. Jerome likewise thought James the Lord’s brother was so called because he was the son of Mary, our Lord’s mother’s sister; Art. Jacobus. Lardner, Canon., vol. iii. p. 63, says: ‘Jerome seems to have been the first who said our Lord’s brethren were the sons of his mother’s sister; and this opinion was at length embraced by Augustine, and has prevailed very much of late, being the opinion of the Romanists in general, and of Lightfoot, Witsius, Lampe, and many of the Protestants. On the other hand, Origen, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers, both Greeks and Latins, were of opinion that James, the Lord’s brother, was not the son of the virgin’s sister, but of Joseph, our Lord’s reputed father, by a former wife, who died before he espoused the virgin. Of the same opinion were Vossius, Basnage, and Cave, among the Protestants; and Valesius among the Romanists. Epiphanius and Theophylact supposed that Joseph’s first wife was the widow of Alpheus, who, being Joseph’s brother, Joseph married her to raise up seed to him; and therefore James, the issue of that marriage, was fitly called the won of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord.’ But these suppositions might have been spared, if the ancients and moderns had recollected that near relations were called brethren by the Hebrews, and that Alpheus and Cleophas are the same names differently written; James the less, the son of Alpheus, being not only the Lord’s near relation, but an apostle, whom, as is generally supposed, he honoured in a particular manner, by appearing to him alone, after his resurrection; 1 Corinthians 15:7. These circumstances, together with his own personal merit, rendered him of such note among the apostles that they appointed him to reside at Jerusalem, and to superintend the Church there. This appointment, Lardner says, was made soon after the martyrdom of Stephen; and, in support of this opinion, observes, ‘that Peter always speaks first, as president among the apostles, until after the choice of the seven deacons. Every thing said of St. James, after that, implies his presiding in the Church at Jerusalem.’ Canon., vol. iii. p. 28. For example, when the apostles and elders at Jerusalem came together to consider whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles, after there had been much disputing, Peter spake, Acts 15:7, then Barnabas and Paul, Acts 15:12. And when they had ended, James summed up the whole, and proposed the terms on which the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, Acts 15:19-21; to which the whole assembly agreed, and wrote letters to the Gentiles, conformably to the opinion of James, Acts 15:22-29. From this it is inferred, that James presided in the council of Jerusalem, because he was president of the Church in that city.
“Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15, says: ‘James was bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore spoke last:’ In the time of this council, Paul communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles to three of the apostles, whom he calls pillars; and tells us that, when they perceived the inspiration and miraculous powers which he possessed, they gave him the right hand of fellowship, mentioning James first, Galatians 2:9: ‘And knowing the grace that was bestowed on me, James, Cephas, and John, who were pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.’ This implies that James, whom, in the first chapter, he had called the Lord’s brother, was not only an apostle, but the presiding apostle in the Church at Jerusalem. In the same chapter, Paul, giving an account of what happened after the council, says, Galatians 2:11: ‘When Peter was come to Antioch, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.’ This shows that James resided at Jerusalem, and presided in the Church there, and was greatly respected by the Jewish believers. The same circumstance appears from Acts 21:17, where, giving an account of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, with the collections from the saints in Judea, Luke says, Acts 21:18: ‘Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.’ Farther, the respect in which James was held by the apostles appears from two facts recorded by Luke: the first is, when Paul came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Barnabas took him, and brought him Peter and James, as the chief apostles. Compare Acts 9:27 with Galatians 1:19. The second fact is, after Peter was miraculously delivered out of prison, about the time of the passover, in the year 44, ‘he came to the house of Mary-where many were gathered together praying; (Acts 12:12;) and when he had declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison, he said, Go, show these things to James, and to the brethren;’ Acts 12:17. These particulars are mentioned by Lardner, and before him by Whitby and Cave, to show that James, the Lord’s brother, was really an apostle, in the strict acceptation of the word; consequently, that Eusebius was mistaken when he placed him among the seventy disciples; E. H., lib. vii. c. 12.
“That the Epistle of James was early esteemed an inspired writing, is evident from the following fact: that while the Second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, are omitted in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, (the Peshito,) which was made in the beginning of the second century for the use of the converted Jews; the Epistle of James has found a place in it, equally with the books which were never called in question. This is an argument of great weight; for certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles, to whom it was not sent, and who perhaps had no opportunity of being acquainted with it till long after it was written. Wherefore its being received by the Jewish believers is an undeniable proof that they knew it to be written by James the apostle; whereas the ignorance of the Gentile believers, concerning this epistle, is not even a presumption against its authenticity.
“That the converted Gentiles had little knowledge of the Epistle of James in the first ages, may have been owing to various causes; such as, that it was addressed to the Jews, and that the matters contained in it were personal to the Jews. For on these accounts the Jewish believers may have thought it not necessary to communicate it to the Gentiles. And when it was made known to them, they may have scrupled to receive it as an inspired writing for the following reasons: 1. The writer does not, in the inscription, take the title of an apostle, but calls himself simply James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Many of the ancients, by calling the writer of this epistle James the Just, have rendered his apostleship doubtful. 3. As they have done, likewise, by speaking of him commonly as bishop of Jerusalem, and not as an apostle of Christ. It is little wonder, therefore, that this epistle was not received generally by the converted Gentiles; consequently that it was not often quoted by them in their writings. But afterwards, when it was considered that this epistle was from the beginning received by the Jewish believers, and that it was translated into the Syriac language for their use; and that Paul, though an apostle, sometimes contented himself with the appellation of a servant of Christ, Philippians 1:1; Philemon 1:1; and sometimes took no appellation but his own name; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; and that the apostle John did not, in any of his epistles, call himself an apostle; the title which the author of the Epistle of James had to be an apostle was no longer doubted, but he was generally acknowledged to be James, the son of Alpheus, and the Lord’s brother; and his epistle, after an accurate examination, was received as an inspired writing. So Estius tells us, who affirms that after the fourth century no Church nor ecclesiastical writer is found who ever doubted of the authority of this epistle; but, on the contrary; all the catalogues of the books of Scripture published, whether by general or provincial councils, or by Roman bishops, or other orthodox writers, since the fourth century, constantly number it among the canonical Scriptures.
“With respect to what is remarked by Eusebius, that there are not many ancient writers who have quoted the Epistle of James, learned men have observed that Clement of Rome has quoted it four several times; and so does Ignatius in his genuine Epistle to the Ephesians, sec. 10, 12, 17, 30; and Origen in his thirteenth Homily on Genesis, sec. 5. That it was not more generally quoted by the ancients, besides the things already mentioned, may have been owing to the following reasons: 1. Being written to the whole Jewish nation to correct the errors and vices which prevailed among them, the Gentiles may have thought themselves little concerned with it, and may have been at no pains to procure copies of it; by which means it was not so generally known among them as some other books of Scripture. 2. The seeming opposition of the doctrine of this epistle to the doctrine of Paul, concerning justification by faith without the works of the law, may have occasioned it to be less regarded by the most ancient writers; just as it was in later times, on the same account, rejected by Luther, who, to show his contempt of it, called it (epistola straminea) a strawy or chaffy epistle.
“To conclude, the authority of the Epistle of James, as an inspired writing, is abundantly established, in Mill’s opinion, by the Apostles Paul and Peter, who have in their writings many sentiments and expressions similar to those contained in this epistle; for example:—
That James the less may have been our Lord’s cousin-german, or even our Lord’s brother by a former wife of Joseph, or even by the virgin, is perfectly possible; and that he was an apostle, and an eminent man among both Jews and Christians, may be readily credited; and that he was author of this epistle, is also possible: but I must still assert that we have neither decisive nor satisfactory evidence on this subject; and that it is arguing in a circle to deduce the evidence of its authenticity from the apostleship of James the less, because this person is not proved to be its author. The chief and proper evidence of its being canonical must be taken from the fact that it was universally received by the Church of Christ, and without scruple incorporated with those writings, which were, on all hands, allowed to have been given by the inspiration of God.
Before I conclude, I shall mention the opinion of Michaelis relative to the author of this epistle. “All things considered,” says he, “I see no ground for the assertion that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the author of this epistle. One circumstance affords, at least, a presumptive argument in favour of the opinion that it was really written by the elder James, and at a time when the Gospel had not been propagated among the Gentiles; namely, that it contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jewish and Gentile converts, which, after the time that the Gentiles were admitted into the Church, became absolutely necessary. Had it been written after the apostolic council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts 15, and by the younger James, we might have expected that, at least, some allusion would be made in it to the decree of that council, which was propounded by the younger James in favour of the Gentile converts; and that the epistle would contain an admonition to the Jewish converts, to consider the Gentile converts as their brethren.”-Introduction to the New Testament.
The epistle itself is entirely different in its complexion from all those in the sacred canon; the style and manner are more that of a Jewish prophet than a Christian apostle. It scarcely touches on any subject purely Christian. Our blessed Lord is only mentioned twice in it, James 1:1; 2:1; but it has nothing of his miracles or teaching, of his death or resurrection, nor of any redemption by him. It begins without any apostolical salutation, and ends without any apostolical benediction. In short, had it not been for the two slight notices of our blessed Lord, we had not known it was the work of any Christian writer. It may be considered a sort of connecting link between Judaism and Christianity, as the ministry of John Baptist was between the old covenant and the new. There is neither plan nor arrangement in it; but it contains many invaluable lessons which no serious person can read without profit.
James the less was martyred at Jerusalem about A. D. 62: and the epistle is supposed to have been written a short time before his death. Though I believe it to be the work of an unknown author, not long after the ascension of our Lord, I shall follow the usual chronology, and date it in the year 61; not because I think that to be the true date, but because it is what is generally adopted.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5569.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5563.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5553.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4065.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4289. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3821. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4420.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2409.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3163. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1001.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 810.
-Year of the CCXth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 808. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 813. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 814. -Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 373. -Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 109.
-Year of the Julian era, 106.
-Year of the Spanish era, 99.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 65. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 61.
-Year of Porcius Festus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 12.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 2.
-Jesus, high priest of the Jews.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 62.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 5; or the second embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 2, or the year before the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 14.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, D. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the XIth of the calends of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the twenty-second of March, which happened in this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the IVth of the Calends of April, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 29th of March. -Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 14.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 22.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 22, 24, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 0, 0.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 1.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 8.
-Roman Consuls, C. Cæsonius Pætus and C. Petronius Turpilianus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 688
GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
PREFACE
This the two epistles of Peter, the first epistle of John, and that of Jude, have been called catholic or general epistles, because, according to Œcumenius and others, they were all written, not to any particular church or churches, or to people dwelling in one place, as all St. Paul’s epistles were, but to the Jewish converts, dispersed through all the countries within the Roman empire.
That the author of this epistle was an apostle appears from the testimony of Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist., lib. 2. cap. 23,) who declares concerning that James to whom the ancients ascribed this epistle, that he was the brother, or kinsman, of the Lord; and by the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions, by all which he is styled, “James the apostle.” It is true, some have imagined that James the elder, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, was the author of this epistle; “but in this they are evidently mistaken; for James the elder was beheaded by Herod, A.D. 44, whereas this epistle was not written till a very considerable time afterward. So early as A.D. 44 the gospel does not seem to have been propagated far beyond the bounds of Palestine, and it cannot be supposed there was any very large number of the Jews of the dispersion who were then converted to the Christian faith; and, though the epistle seems to have been intended, in some measure, for the general benefit of the twelve tribes, yet more especially for those among them who were converts to the Christian religion. Besides, it is intimated, in the epistle itself, that the Jewish Christians were at this time sunk into very remarkable degeneracy, both in doctrine and practice, which is not likely to have been the case while they were under the first impressions of their conversion. And, indeed, in this epistle there are some plain intimations that the destruction of Jerusalem was near at hand, (chap. 5:1-8,) which event was accomplished about the year 70; and from this circumstance we may reasonably conclude the date of it to be about A.D. 60 or 61.” — Doddridge. This epistle, therefore, could not have been written by James the elder, but must have been the composition of James the son of Alpheus or Cleophas, by Mary, the sister of the blessed Virgin. Now, it being thus shown that James the apostle was the author of this epistle, we cannot reasonably doubt the authenticity of it, especially if we consider that “it is cited by Clemens Romanus four several times, by Ignatius in his genuine epistle to the Ephesians, and by Origen in his thirteenth homily upon Genesis. Eusebius says it was known to most, and publicly read in most Christian churches; St. Jerome, that in process of time it obtained authority. Estius observes, that ‘they who before doubted of it, in the fourth century embraced the opinion of them who received it, and that from thence no church or ecclesiastical writer ever doubted of it; but, on the contrary, all the catalogues of the books of the holy Scriptures, published by general or provincial councils, Roman bishops, or other well-informed writers, number it among the canonical Scriptures;’ which proof must give sufficient certainty of it to any Christian.” — Whitby. If any further argument were necessary to be advanced in proof of the divine authority of this epistle, it may be observed that while the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, are omitted in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, which was made in the beginning of the second century for the use of the converted Jews, this epistle of James hath found a place therein; an argument this of great weight. For certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles, to whom it was not sent, and who, perhaps, had no opportunity of being acquainted with it till long after it was written. In addition to the support which its antiquity gives to the authenticity of this epistle, may be mentioned the correspondence of the sentiments it contains with the tenor of the Christian doctrine. It is true, this was called in question by Luther, at the beginning of the Reformation; but deeper experience, a more perfect investigation, more extensive observation, and a maturer judgment, afterward induced him to change his opinion. As to the subjects treated on in this epistle, it must be observed that, as the author of it statedly resided at Jerusalem, (whence he hath been styled, by some of the ancient fathers, the bishop of that city,) it was very natural for him, while he confined his personal labours, to the inhabitants of Judea, to endeavour, by his writings, to extend his services to the Jewish Christians who were dispersed abroad in more distant regions. “For this purpose,” says Dr. Doddridge, “there are two points which the apostle seems to have principally aimed at, though he has not pursued them in an orderly and logical method, but in the free epistolary manner, handling them jointly or distinctly, as occasion naturally offered. And these were, to correct those errors, both in doctrine and practice, into which the Jewish Christians had fallen, which might otherwise have produced fatal consequences; and then to establish the faith, and animate the hope, of sincere believers, both under their present and their future sufferings.”
It may add some weight to the important advices, cautions, and exhortations, contained in this epistle, to observe that the author of it, for the remarkable holiness of his life, was surnamed “the Just;” and that our Lord so regarded him as to appear to him when alone, after his resurrection; (1 Corinthians 15:7;) and that about three years after Paul’s conversion, being resident at Jerusalem, he was considered as a pillar, or noted supporter, of the church there, Galatians 2:9. Hence the deference paid to his advice at the apostolic council, spoken of Acts 15. About A.D. 63, when Festus was dead, and Albinus his successor had not arrived at Jerusalem, the Jews being exceedingly enraged at the success of the gospel, Ananias II., high-priest of the Jews, caused him to be condemned, and delivered him into the hands of the people and the Pharisees, who threw him down from the stairs of the temple, when a fuller dashed out his brains with a club. His life was so holy, that Josephus considers the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment inflicted on that city for his death.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The General Epistle of James.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 319
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF
JAMES.
THE gospel says that St. John, the son of Zebedee and of Salome, had a brother of the name of James, who was called by our Saviour to be one of the twelve apostles. This James was beheaded by the command of Herod Agrippa in the forty fourth year of Christ. Acts 12:1, 2. St. James, the Lord’s brother, was a different person from the above; his mother’s name was Mary, and his brethren, Joses, Judas, and Simon, who are all mentioned in the gospel. St. Mark calls him James the less, to distinguish him from James the brother of John. He was also called James the just, and by St. Paul the brother of the Lord. James the son of Alpheus is also named as one of the twelve.
To elucidate the enquiry, whether James the son of Alpheus be the same person with James the Lord’s brother, we must make some farther research. Many of the ancients have thought that he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, before he was married to the virgin Mary. But Jerome rejects this notion, and maintains that he was the son of Alpheus and of Mary, sister of the virgin, and of course the cousin of our Lord; and first cousins, in the sacred text, are often called brethren. Jerome therefore elegantly styles him the thirteenth apostle. The reader may collate the words of the evangelists, and determine for himself. Matthew 27:55,
When St. Paul went up to Jerusalem, he found Peter, James, and John, who were regarded as pillars in the church. Galatians 1:17. The Lord had specially appeared to James after his resurrection, as is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7. He presided in Jerusalem for about thirty years, and no man in the church was more illustrious for piety.
His martyrdom, it would seem, was plotted by the sadducees, the scribes and pharisees, during the absence of the governor. They placed him on a pinnacle, or some elevation of the temple, and required him to declare his faith respecting Christ. The people being called together, and excited to tumult, the holy apostle nobly confessed the truth, that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. This was as a signal to the wicked; they threw him down from the elevation where he stood; but not being killed by the fall, the jews stoned him while he kneeled, praying for his enemies, till a man terminated his existence by a stroke on the head with a pole. But in about seven or eight years, the Lord avenged the blood of his saints. — The learned reader may see the whole of St. James’s martyrdom in Josephus, Ant. Jud. 20:8. Hegesippus 5. Clem. Alex. Hypot. 8.
The authenticity of this epistle has run the gauntlet of criticism, as to its design, its characters, and its doctrines; but it has fully maintained itself, as the genuine production of James, and a book divinely inspired. The ideas are clear, the theology pure, and the language bold and strong; all of which will appear in the comments. Its apparent incongruity with the writings of Paul on the subject of justification, occasioned many in former times to doubt its authenticity, but there is no real ground for such objections.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 199
JAMES
INTRODUCTION
THE AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE.
JAMES, the brother of Jesus, and probably the eldest son of Joseph and Mary,* was doubtless born at Nazareth, and lived there for years with his parents and his younger brothers, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and his sisters, mentioned but unnamed in history. He seems to have been specially consecrated from his birth as a Nazarite, and to have retained through life the strongest traits of that order. As a descendant of David he was an intensely national Jew, and expected a heroic Messiah who should overthrow Rome, and give a more than ancient glory and supremacy to Judea and Jerusalem. Hence he, with his younger brothers, looked upon the eldest, Jesus, notwithstanding the purity of his youthful character and the supernaturalisms that hovered round him, as mistaken if he assumed to be that patriot liberator. Hence, too, when his neighbors were amazed at his “wisdom,” Jesus, with peculiar pathos, acknowledged himself “a prophet without honour in his own house.” During the residence of the family in Galilee, when the earnest labours of our Lord in his divine mission drew upon him, from his enemies, the imputation of a demoniac, the family—mother and brothers—in a panic of unbelief went to bring him home, under assumption that his mental faculties had become overstrained by excitement. That the brothers were, at this time, not of the twelve, is certain from the fact that while they were without, the disciples were within, the house, listening to the Lord’s discourse. As the eldest of these brothers, our James of this epistle must be considered as engaged in this family mission to Jesus.
[* The question of his and his brothers’ sonship of Mary is discussed in note on Matthew 13:55. In regard to the three Jameses consult note Matthew 10:2.]
Later in our Lord’s ministry we have a still more unequivocal instance of the unbelief of James and his brothers. As the feast of tabernacles was approaching, his brothers proffered their advice to him to go and display himself to the world, pointing out the inconsistency of aspiring to be a national leader and yet, lurking “in secret.” Jesus recognises their wish for his putting himself at the head of the worldly expectants of a political Messiah. The hatred of “the world,” he tells them, cannot rest on them, for they belong to its party; as for himself, he is a rebuker of its sin, and must bide the Father’s time and method of his self-manifestation. It is remarkable that our James, who was one, and probably leader and spokesman, of these counsellors, uses the word “world” in this epistle in the very sense of the term as it occurs in our Lord’s reply. It was not until after the crucifixion and resurrection that James, with his brothers, emerges from this cloud. Luke (Acts 1:13, 14) informs us that they were present at the meeting which chose Matthias as apostle. Before mentioning them the apostolic list is given, clearly separating the apostles from the brothers. In that list two Jameses are named, one with his brother John, and the other “James the son of Alpheus.” Alphean James was, therefore, an apostle, but not a brother of Jesus; our James, then, must have been a brother, but not an apostle. The key to his conversion seems to be, in some degree, supplied by Paul’s statement that the risen Lord “was seen of James.” 1 Corinthians 15. 7.
Henceforth James resides in Jerusalem with an ever-increasing eminence. When Peter is released by the angel from prison he bids his friends “Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren.” Acts 12:17. When Paul returns from Arabia to Jerusalem, after his conversion, he sees Peter, and of the other apostles none “save James the Lord’s brother;” where he is evidently called an “apostle,” and also “the Lord’s brother,” which he would not have been if he were only cousin. Galatians 1:19. Fourteen years afterwards Paul comes to the Jerusalem Council, (comp, Acts 15:2, with Galatians 2:1,) and finds James (with Peter and John) one of “the pillars.” Galatians 2:9. At the council he sees James preside, and hears him pronounce from the Judaic side that liberalized sentence by which Gentile Christianity is excused from circumcision and the ritual, and Paul’s own apostleship is acknowledged. Yet it had been “from James,” professedly, that the ultraists had come to Paul’s Gentile field at Antioch, proclaiming the unconditional necessity of circumcision to his converts, frightening Peter from his balance, rendering Barnabas doubtful, and rousing Paul to demand the calling of the Council. Amid these elements of disturbance very conspicuous are the liberal conservatism and statesman-like dignity of James. Lastly, when Paul, at the close of his third missionary tour, visits Jerusalem, James, with the elders, received him in state and with an honour that fully shows the cordial relation in which each in his own position stood to the other. At this point it is difficult to say, with Pressense, that James’s dignity was nothing more than pre-eminence of character. And the official nature of his position is somewhat confirmed by the fact that earliest accounts seem to agree that his immediate successor was Symeon, another relative of Jesus, and that a successional line of fifteen Hebrew bishops, whose names are given by Eusebius, extended to the final desolation of Jerusalem under Hadrian. As son of David he was lineal heir to the throne at Jerusalem, where he was a Christian bishop, and, doubtless, this fact gained immunities for him and for Christianity that otherwise could not have existed.
The strong sympathy of James for his countrymen, his lofty integrity of character, his deep tinge of asceticism, derived from his lifelong Nazaritism, won for him the profound reverence of the people of Jerusalem with all but the dominating class. “He was,” says Eusebius, “by all named the Just;” the very adjective applied by Matthew to his father Joseph. The traditional description of him is given by Hegesippus in a passage found in Eusebius to this effect: “He was consecrated from his birth. Wine and strong drink he drank not, never anointed himself with oil, or used the bath. To him alone it was permitted to enter the holy place, for he wore no woollen, but linen. He was accustomed to go alone into the temple, and would be found kneeling upon his knees and praying for the forgiveness of the people, so that his knees became indurated like those of a camel; and on account of his ever bowing his knees in worship to God, and pleading for pardon for the people, and, indeed, for his wonderful piety, he was called Just, and People’s Fortress.” This description strongly suggests that James, in memory of our Lord’s great prediction of the doom of Jerusalem, lived in consecrated supplication for the remission of that terrible sentence, and for the salvation of his people. In spite of his teaching that the Messiah had come in Jesus, they revered him as a man of unparalleled holiness, and felt his prayers to be the stronghold of public safety. But there was one proud ruler who looked with murderous hatred upon this brother of the Crucified—the high priest Ananus. He was restrained by the Roman power alone, and waited his opportunity for the destruction of the “Just.” The chance at length presented itself.
A brief history of the successive Roman procurators over Judea we have given in our vol. iii, p. 233, down to Felix, in A.D. 51, who was succeeded by Festus, in A.D. 60, (note, Acts 25:1,) who was succeeded on his death by Albinus, in A.D. 62. The martyrdom of James we give in the words of Josephus:
“Ananus, thinking he had a fitting opportunity at the death of Festus, and while Albinus was yet on his way, [from Rome,] calls a session of the Sanhedrin, and arraigning before it the brother of Jesus called the Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, bringing accusation against them as transgressors, delivered them over to be stoned to death.”
As Josephus narrates the governmental action, so Hegesippus (Eusebius, 2:22) describes the popular side of the movement by which James was martyred. The profound piety of James so impressed the city that an apprehension arose among the hierarchy that he would carry the people with him. On the one hand parties of inquirers resorted to him, asking, “What is the (way or) ‘door’ of Jesus?” In other words, What is the true view in regard to your crucified brother? To these James firmly replied, “He is the Saviour;” in consequence of which testimony large numbers became believers. Alarmed at this, the Jewish leaders conceived a vain hope that James himself might be induced to modify his claims before the people, and they made him stand upon an eminence of the temple to address an explanation to the people. “O Just one,” said they, “in whom we all ought to confide, What is the door of Jesus!” He answered with a loud voice, “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus, the Son of man? He sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come in the clouds of heaven.” The enraged authorities, with Ananus probably as chief mover, then incited the mob to stone him, whilst he, kneeling, exclaimed, “I pray thee, O Father, the Lord God, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” At this moment one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, interposed, saying, “Cease; what do ye? the Just one prays for you.” But a certain fuller, taking a club belonging to his trade, struck him a fatal blow upon the head, and so “the Just” was martyred. They buried him upon the spot, and (says the narrator whom Hegesippus quotes) his pillar still remains by the temple. Hegesippus adds, that “straightway Vespasian besieged them;” but he doubtless conceptually shortens the real interval of time in order to trace a connexion between the crime of James’s murder and the punishment of the city. Between the priesthood of Ananus and the siege of Jerusalem was a period of several years.
AUTHENTICITY, DATE, AND STYLE.
This is in the group of epistles which received but a late general recognition in the Church. The most decisive fact in its favour is its acceptance into the Peshito, which is the version of the very early Syriac Church, where the epistle was first published. It is, therefore, an ancient and a home testimony. There is a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas, the apostolic father, which appears to be an imitation of James 4:7. But Origen is the first Greek father who expressly quotes the epistle with the author’s name. Eusebius classes it as disputed, yet generally recognised. It is recognised by Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, near Rome, as Scripture, but without naming the author; and is recognised by Jerome as Scripture, with the author’s name. It was universally received in the fourth century. As to the DATE, there are two opinions maintained, each by eminent scholars. The first, held generally by the earlier commentators, dated it a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem; the second, held by some later scholars, as Neander, Huther, and Alford, place its writing a short time before the Council of Jerusalem, (Acts xv,) about A.D. 45. This second we consider entirely too early.
A decisive objection to the early date is the late recognition of the epistle by the Church. If it were really written by James the brother of Jesus from Jerusalem to the general body of Hebrew Christians, in the Greek language, so early as A.D. 45, it would have obtained an early circulation, a general notoriety, and an established authority among the earliest documents of the New Testament canon. On the other hand, if published shortly before the overthrow of Jerusalem, we easily understand how, amid the tumults of the times, it should have failed of early general recognition. A second objection to the early date is its assumption of a widespread and well-established Christian public already existing in the Jewish “dispersion.” Where was this ecumenical audience in A.D. 45? Alford’s reply that it appears in Acts 11:19, and following verses, is entirely insufficient. A few scattered clusters of converts in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, are very far short of meeting the demand. The whole air of the epistle presupposes a large body of Christian Hebrews scattered through the then civilized world, with Jerusalem for its spiritual capital. Apparently in this epistle, as in Hebrews and the Pastoral and Catholic epistles, the discussions and strifes about circumcision and ritual are long past. In the Pastorals, St. Paul inveighs against the Gnosticizing Jews; in the Catholic, John against the Docetists; in Hebrews, Paul against the Alexandrines; while James, from the Hebrew side, only takes issue with the antinomians who misquoted Paul’s doctrine of justification “to their own destruction.” This implication, that our epistle appeared later than Paul’s Romans, is pronounced by Alford “a superficial view;” and in the sense that it lies patent on the surface of the facts we acknowledge it to be superficial, but none the less fundamental and certain. There is nothing “improbable” in supposing that James delicately avoids personal collision with Paul himself, yet graphically states the counter truth in regard to faith and works, in order that the true doctrinal balance should be maintained in the Christian Church.
As to the state of things apparent in the epistle, we may readily concede that the mention of church and elders by no means proves a late period, for these appear at the very origin of Christianity. But in James the Churches are world-wide; they have their regular-built synagogues; they have generally fallen into fixed habits, such as obsequiousness to the rich, an antinomian perversion of the Pauline doctrine of faith, and a too great loquacity of would-be teachers and “masters.” The eloquent denunciatory apostrophe to “rich men” implies their established relations to the Church, while the woes pronounced upon them intimate the impending doom overhanging the city in which it was written.
As we see a probable allusion to the martyrdom of James in Hebrews 13:7, so Hebrews must have appeared after this epistle. The order of facts we think as follows: This epistle; the martyrdom of James; Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews; the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, probably with Timothy; and the Jewish war and overthrow. As the death of James took place immediately upon the appointment of Albinus, its date must have been A.D. 62. How long this epistle was written before that event, though certainly not long, can only be a guess. We put it conjecturally at A.D. 60. The permanent residence of James at Jerusalem places it beyond reasonable doubt that his epistle was written from that city. At the same time it is noted that the natural scenes alluded to by the writer were those familiar to a Jerusalemite. The sea is not far distant, (James 1:6; 3:4;) figs, oil, and wine are plenty, (James 3:12;) there are bitter fountains, (James 3:11, 12;) droughts and consequent danger of crops, (James 3:17, 15;) the burning wind, (James 1:11;) and the former and latter rain, (v, 7.) The writer’s relationship to Jesus seems to appear from his many similar allusions to nature. The resemblances to the style of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, are remarkable. Alford gives the following list, (iv, p. 105:) James 1:2, with Matthew 5:10-12; 1:4, with Matthew 5:48; 1:5 and 5:15, with Matthew 7:7, etc.; 1:9, with Matthew 5:3; 1:20, with Matthew 5:22; 2:13, with Matthew 6:14, 15, and 5:7; 2:14, etc., with Matthew 7:21, etc.; 3:17, 18, with Matthew 5:9; 4:4, with Matthew 6:24; 4:10, with Matthew 5:3, 4; 4:11, with Matthew vii, i, etc.; 5:2, with Matthew 6:19; 5:10, with Matthew 5:12; 5:12, with Matthew 5:33, etc.; and from other discourses of our Lord: 1:14, with Matthew 15:19; 4:12, with Matthew 10:28. Compare also the places where the rich are denounced with Luke 6:24, etc.
READERS ADDRESSED.
The opening superscription, “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” certainly means the entire Jewish nation. They are the Messianic race, the writer’s own kinsmen: nay, as a descendant of David, they are his own hereditary people. Yet it is to an inner circle of the tribes that his doctrines are immediately addressed. He is a servant of Christ, (verse 1,) and consoles his “brethren” in trial; his “synagogue” (English version, assembly, James 2:2) is a Christian Church; and his whole aim is to portray the formation of a “perfect” man, or model Christian, according to the gospel “law of liberty,” by which the soul is most perfectly free in the most perfect obedience to righteousness. Yet he does not lose sight of the wider circle of the Messianic race. It is to that broader audience that he addresses his rebuke of the belligerent spirit in 4:1-10; and we cannot avoid the conclusion, that in his prophetic apostrophe to “rich men,” in 5:1-6, he denounces, not the Jewish aristocracy, but the Roman oppressors under whom Jew and Christian were alike crushed. We think the current view of most commentators, that these “rich men” were “brethren,” is entirely inadmissible.
The style is lucid, pointed, rich with figures drawn from nature, and, while flowing much in a clear, didactic current, rises, when the topic demands, into the loftiest and most impetuous torrent of denunciatory eloquence. The purity of its Greek is not so inexplicable a problem as Alford implies. Men endowed with a natural facility for acquiring and using with purity and power a foreign tongue are by no means a rare phenomenon.
Course of Thought in This Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 206
COURSE OF THOUGHT IN THIS EPISTLE.
I. THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN UNDER TRIAL James 1:1-18
1. Trials, as conducive to firmness and perfecting Christian character, are a joy James 1:1-4
2. Wisdom for this Christian perfection, obtainable from God, by faithful prayer, for poor or rich James 1:5-11
3. Blessedness of enduring temptation; which (temptation) is not from God; from whom the good gift alone James 1:12-18 II. WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE—THE PROPER TEMPER, BEHAVIOUR, AND FAITH THERE James 1:19-3:18
1. No loquacity or irritation but candid hearing James 1:19-21
2. Being not hearers only, but doers of the word James 1:22-27
3. Without obsequiousness to the rich incomers to Synagogue James 2:1-4
4. For the rich are generally persecutors and blasphemers James 2:5-7
5. And violating the law on this or any one point breaks the entire law James 2:8-13
6. Christian Synagogue rejects workless faith as unjustifying James 2:14-26
7. Rejects, too, many teachers with untamable and self-contradictory tongues James 3:1-12
8. True test of teachers and hearers, a heaven-descended wisdom, evinced by rectitude and peacefulness of temper and life James 3:13-18
III. OUTSIDE THE CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE—PUBLIC DISTURBANCES, IRREVERENCE, OPPRESSIVE WEALTH James 4:1-5:20
1. Wars and public commotions, whence come they? And what the remedy? James 4:1-10
2. Christian avoidance of even bitter and hostile speech James 4:11, 12
John Wesley
Notes on the General Epistle of St. James.
WES_NTN2.PDF, source PDF p. 335
NOTES ON THE GENERAL
EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
This is supposed to have been written by James the son of Alpheus the brother (or kinsman) of our Lord. It is called a General Epistle, because written not to a particular person or church, but to all the converted Israelites. Herein the apostle reproves that antinomian spirit, which had even then infected many, who had perverted the glorious doctrine of justification by faith into an occasion of licentiousness. He likewise comforts the true believers under their sufferings, and reminds them of the judgments that were approaching.
IT HAS THREE PARTS:
I. The inscription, James 1:1
II. The exhortation,
1. To patience, enduring outward, conquering inward, temptations, 2-15
2. Considering the goodness of God, 16-18 To be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
And these three are,
1. Proposed, 19-21
2. Treated of at large:
a. Let hearing be joined with practice, 22-26 Particularly with bridling the tongue, 26 With mercy and purity, 27 Without respect of persons, James 2:1-13 And so faith universally with works, 14-26
b. Let the speech be modest, James 3:1-12
c. Let anger, with all the other passions, be restrained, 13- James 4:1-17
3. To patience again:
a. Confirmed by the coming of the judge, in which draws near, The calamity of the wicked, James 5:1-6 The deliverance of the righteous, 7-12
b. Nourished by prayer, 13-18
III. The conclusion, 19,20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the General Epistle of James.
CLA_JAM.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
THERE have been more doubts, and more diversity of opinion, concerning the author of this epistle, and the time in which it was written, than about most other parts of the New Testament. To enter at large into a discussion of the opinions of ancient and modern writers on this subject would tend but little to the establishment of truth, or to the edification of the reader. Lardner, Michaelis, and Macknight, have entered considerably into the controversy relative to the author, the time, and the canonical authority of this book; and to them the reader who wishes to see the difficulties with which the subject is pressed may have recourse.
This epistle, with those of Peter, John, and Jude, is termed catholic, καθολικη, from κατα, through, and ολος, the whole; for the application of which term Œcumenius, in cap. i. Jacobi, gives the following reason: καθολικαι λεγονται αυται, οιονει εγκυκλιοι. ου γαρ
αφωρισμενως εθνει ενι η πολει, αλλα καθολου τοις πιστοις
“These epistles are called catholic, universal, or circular, because they were not written to one nation or city, but to believers everywhere.” Yet, as these epistles had some difficulty at first to get into general circulation, but at last were everywhere received, it is more likely that they obtained the term catholic from the circumstance of their being at last universally acknowledged as canonical; so that the word catholic is to be understood here in the same sense as canonical.
Who the writer of the epistle in question was, is difficult to say; all that we know certainly is, from his own words, that his name was James, and that he was a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus. Two persons of this name are mentioned in the New Testament; James the son of Zebedee, called also James the elder; and James tou mikrou, the less or the little one, called the son of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord: but whether one of these, or if one of them, which, or whether one of the same name different from both, are points that cannot be satisfactorily determined. Michaelis, who has examined the subject with his usual ability, leaves the matter in doubt; but leans to the opinion that James the son of Zebedee was the author, and that this epistle was written before any of those in the New Testament. Other great authorities ascribe it to James, called the brother of our Lord, who was president, or bishop, of the Church in Jerusalem. Even allowing this opinion to be correct, it is not agreed in what sense James is called our Lord’s brother, there being four or five different opinions concerning the meaning of this term. From Matthew 13:55, 56, we learn that there were four persons called brethren of our Lord: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” Now, it is generally allowed that the James here is the author of this epistle, and the Jude or Judas, mentioned with him, the author of that which stands last in this collection. But with respect to the meaning of the term brother, as here used, it will be necessary to state the opinions of learned men:—
1. It is supposed that these were children of Joseph, by a former marriage; this is a very ancient opinion; as there is nothing improbable in the supposition that Joseph was a widower when he married the blessed virgin.
2. They are supposed to have been children of Joseph and his wife Mary; all born after the birth of our Lord. This is an opinion extremely probable: see some reasons for it in the note on Matthew 13:56; see also on Matthew 1:25.
3. That they were called our Lord’s brethren, because children of Joseph by the wife of one of his brothers, who had died childless, and whose widow Joseph took, according to the Mosaic law, to raise up seed to his deceased brother. This is very unlikely, because, in this case, it would have been only requisite for Joseph to have had one male by his brother’s wife; but here we find four, besides several sisters.
4. That Cleophas, called also Alpheus, married a sister of the blessed virgin, called also Mary, by whom he had the above issue; and that these were called brethren of our Lord, from the common custom among the Hebrews, to term all the more immediately cognate branches of the same family, brothers’ and sisters’ children, i.e. cousins-german, brethren. These, therefore, being aunt’s children of our Lord, are, according to this usage, called his brethren. The first and second of these opinions appear to me the most probable; though most modern writers are of the latter opinion.
That of the two James’s, James the less was the author of this epistle, Dr. Macknight thinks, following Lardner and others, is incontestable: I shall quote his abridgment of Lardner’s arguments; but the point in question is not, in my opinion, made out by any of these writers.
“In the catalogue of the apostles, Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; we find two persons of the name of James; the first was the son of Zebedee, Matthew 10:2; the second in all the catalogues is called the son of Alpheus: one of these apostles is called, Galatians 1:19, the Lord’s brother. Wherefore, as there were only twelve apostles, and as James the son of Zebedee, so far as we know, was in no respect related to our Lord, the apostle called James, the Lord’s brother, must have been James the son of Alpheus, called also James the less or younger, whose relation to Christ will appear by comparing Mark 15:40, with John 19:25. In the former passage, Mark, speaking of the women who were present at the crucifixion, says: ‘There were also women looking on afar off, among whom were Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.’ In the latter passage, John, speaking of the same women, says: ‘There stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen:’ wherefore, our Lord’s mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, mentioned by John, is in all probability the person whom Mark calls Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses; consequently, her sons, James and Joses, were our Lord’s cousins-german by his mother. And as the Hebrews called all near relations brethren, it is more than probable that James the son of Alpheus, who was our Lord’s cousin-german, is James the Lord’s brother, mentioned Galatians 1:19. Three circumstances confirm this opinion: 1. James and Joses, the sons of Mary, our Lord’s mother’s sister, are expressly called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3. 2. James, the son of our Lord’s mother’s sister, being distinguished from another James by the appellation of the less, Mark 15:40, there is good reason to suppose that he is the James whom Mark, in his catalogue, distinguishes from James the son of Zebedee, by the appellation of the son of Alpheus. It is true, Mary the mother of James and of Joses, is called the wife of Cleophas, John 19:25: but Cleophas and Alpheus are the same name differently pronounced; the one according to the Hebrew, and the other according to the Greek, orthography. 3. Of the persons called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, there are three mentioned in the catalogue as APOSTLES: James, and Simon, and Judas. They, I suppose, are the brethren of the Lord, who are said, as apostles, to have had a right to lead about a sister or a wife, &c.; 1 Corinthians 9:5. Jerome likewise thought James the Lord’s brother was so called because he was the son of Mary, our Lord’s mother’s sister; Art. Jacobus. Lardner, Canon., vol. iii. p. 63, says: ‘Jerome seems to have been the first who said our Lord’s brethren were the sons of his mother’s sister; and this opinion was at length embraced by Augustine, and has prevailed very much of late, being the opinion of the Romanists in general, and of Lightfoot, Witsius, Lampe, and many of the Protestants. On the other hand, Origen, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers, both Greeks and Latins, were of opinion that James, the Lord’s brother, was not the son of the virgin’s sister, but of Joseph, our Lord’s reputed father, by a former wife, who died before he espoused the virgin. Of the same opinion were Vossius, Basnage, and Cave, among the Protestants; and Valesius among the Romanists. Epiphanius and Theophylact supposed that Joseph’s first wife was the widow of Alpheus, who, being Joseph’s brother, Joseph married her to raise up seed to him; and therefore James, the issue of that marriage, was fitly called the won of Alpheus, and brother of our Lord.’ But these suppositions might have been spared, if the ancients and moderns had recollected that near relations were called brethren by the Hebrews, and that Alpheus and Cleophas are the same names differently written; James the less, the son of Alpheus, being not only the Lord’s near relation, but an apostle, whom, as is generally supposed, he honoured in a particular manner, by appearing to him alone, after his resurrection; 1 Corinthians 15:7. These circumstances, together with his own personal merit, rendered him of such note among the apostles that they appointed him to reside at Jerusalem, and to superintend the Church there. This appointment, Lardner says, was made soon after the martyrdom of Stephen; and, in support of this opinion, observes, ‘that Peter always speaks first, as president among the apostles, until after the choice of the seven deacons. Every thing said of St. James, after that, implies his presiding in the Church at Jerusalem.’ Canon., vol. iii. p. 28. For example, when the apostles and elders at Jerusalem came together to consider whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles, after there had been much disputing, Peter spake, Acts 15:7, then Barnabas and Paul, Acts 15:12. And when they had ended, James summed up the whole, and proposed the terms on which the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, Acts 15:19-21; to which the whole assembly agreed, and wrote letters to the Gentiles, conformably to the opinion of James, Acts 15:22-29. From this it is inferred, that James presided in the council of Jerusalem, because he was president of the Church in that city.
“Chrysostom, in his Homily on Acts 15, says: ‘James was bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore spoke last:’ In the time of this council, Paul communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles to three of the apostles, whom he calls pillars; and tells us that, when they perceived the inspiration and miraculous powers which he possessed, they gave him the right hand of fellowship, mentioning James first, Galatians 2:9: ‘And knowing the grace that was bestowed on me, James, Cephas, and John, who were pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.’ This implies that James, whom, in the first chapter, he had called the Lord’s brother, was not only an apostle, but the presiding apostle in the Church at Jerusalem. In the same chapter, Paul, giving an account of what happened after the council, says, Galatians 2:11: ‘When Peter was come to Antioch, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.’ This shows that James resided at Jerusalem, and presided in the Church there, and was greatly respected by the Jewish believers. The same circumstance appears from Acts 21:17, where, giving an account of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, with the collections from the saints in Judea, Luke says, Acts 21:18: ‘Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.’ Farther, the respect in which James was held by the apostles appears from two facts recorded by Luke: the first is, when Paul came to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, Barnabas took him, and brought him Peter and James, as the chief apostles. Compare Acts 9:27 with Galatians 1:19. The second fact is, after Peter was miraculously delivered out of prison, about the time of the passover, in the year 44, ‘he came to the house of Mary-where many were gathered together praying; (Acts 12:12;) and when he had declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison, he said, Go, show these things to James, and to the brethren;’ Acts 12:17. These particulars are mentioned by Lardner, and before him by Whitby and Cave, to show that James, the Lord’s brother, was really an apostle, in the strict acceptation of the word; consequently, that Eusebius was mistaken when he placed him among the seventy disciples; E. H., lib. vii. c. 12.
“That the Epistle of James was early esteemed an inspired writing, is evident from the following fact: that while the Second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, are omitted in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, (the Peshito,) which was made in the beginning of the second century for the use of the converted Jews; the Epistle of James has found a place in it, equally with the books which were never called in question. This is an argument of great weight; for certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles, to whom it was not sent, and who perhaps had no opportunity of being acquainted with it till long after it was written. Wherefore its being received by the Jewish believers is an undeniable proof that they knew it to be written by James the apostle; whereas the ignorance of the Gentile believers, concerning this epistle, is not even a presumption against its authenticity.
“That the converted Gentiles had little knowledge of the Epistle of James in the first ages, may have been owing to various causes; such as, that it was addressed to the Jews, and that the matters contained in it were personal to the Jews. For on these accounts the Jewish believers may have thought it not necessary to communicate it to the Gentiles. And when it was made known to them, they may have scrupled to receive it as an inspired writing for the following reasons: 1. The writer does not, in the inscription, take the title of an apostle, but calls himself simply James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Many of the ancients, by calling the writer of this epistle James the Just, have rendered his apostleship doubtful. 3. As they have done, likewise, by speaking of him commonly as bishop of Jerusalem, and not as an apostle of Christ. It is little wonder, therefore, that this epistle was not received generally by the converted Gentiles; consequently that it was not often quoted by them in their writings. But afterwards, when it was considered that this epistle was from the beginning received by the Jewish believers, and that it was translated into the Syriac language for their use; and that Paul, though an apostle, sometimes contented himself with the appellation of a servant of Christ, Philippians 1:1; Philemon 1:1; and sometimes took no appellation but his own name; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; and that the apostle John did not, in any of his epistles, call himself an apostle; the title which the author of the Epistle of James had to be an apostle was no longer doubted, but he was generally acknowledged to be James, the son of Alpheus, and the Lord’s brother; and his epistle, after an accurate examination, was received as an inspired writing. So Estius tells us, who affirms that after the fourth century no Church nor ecclesiastical writer is found who ever doubted of the authority of this epistle; but, on the contrary; all the catalogues of the books of Scripture published, whether by general or provincial councils, or by Roman bishops, or other orthodox writers, since the fourth century, constantly number it among the canonical Scriptures.
“With respect to what is remarked by Eusebius, that there are not many ancient writers who have quoted the Epistle of James, learned men have observed that Clement of Rome has quoted it four several times; and so does Ignatius in his genuine Epistle to the Ephesians, sec. 10, 12, 17, 30; and Origen in his thirteenth Homily on Genesis, sec. 5. That it was not more generally quoted by the ancients, besides the things already mentioned, may have been owing to the following reasons: 1. Being written to the whole Jewish nation to correct the errors and vices which prevailed among them, the Gentiles may have thought themselves little concerned with it, and may have been at no pains to procure copies of it; by which means it was not so generally known among them as some other books of Scripture. 2. The seeming opposition of the doctrine of this epistle to the doctrine of Paul, concerning justification by faith without the works of the law, may have occasioned it to be less regarded by the most ancient writers; just as it was in later times, on the same account, rejected by Luther, who, to show his contempt of it, called it (epistola straminea) a strawy or chaffy epistle.
“To conclude, the authority of the Epistle of James, as an inspired writing, is abundantly established, in Mill’s opinion, by the Apostles Paul and Peter, who have in their writings many sentiments and expressions similar to those contained in this epistle; for example:—
1 Peter 1:3: Who hath
begotten us again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
Romans 5:3, 4: Knowing that
affliction worketh out patience; and
patience experience.
Romans 2:13: That the hearers of
the law are not just before God, but
James 1:18: Having
willed it, he hath begotten us by the
word.
James 1:3: Knowing that the
proving of your faith worketh out
patience.
James 1:22: And be ye doers of
the law, and not hearers only,
the doers of the law shall be justified.
Romans 7:23: I see another law
in my members, warring against the
law of my mind.
1 Peter 2:11: Lusts which war
against the soul.
1 Peter 5:8, 9: Your adversary
the devil; whom resist, steadfast in the
faith.
1 Peter 5:6: Be humbled under
the mighty hand of God, that he may
exalt you.
Romans 14:4: Who art thou that
condemnest another man’s household
servant?
1 Peter 4:8: Love covereth a
multitude of sins.
deceiving yourselves by false
reasoning.
James 4:1: Come they not
hence, even from your lusts, which
war in your members?
James 4:7: Resist the devil, and
he will flee from you.
James 4:10: Be humbled in the
presence of God, and he will lift you
up.
James 4:12: Thou, who art thou
that condemnest another?
James 5:20: Will cover a
multitude of sins.”
See Macknight’s preface.
That James the less may have been our Lord’s cousin-german, or even our Lord’s brother by a former wife of Joseph, or even by the virgin, is perfectly possible; and that he was an apostle, and an eminent man among both Jews and Christians, may be readily credited; and that he was author of this epistle, is also possible: but I must still assert that we have neither decisive nor satisfactory evidence on this subject; and that it is arguing in a circle to deduce the evidence of its authenticity from the apostleship of James the less, because this person is not proved to be its author. The chief and proper evidence of its being canonical must be taken from the fact that it was universally received by the Church of Christ, and without scruple incorporated with those writings, which were, on all hands, allowed to have been given by the inspiration of God.
Before I conclude, I shall mention the opinion of Michaelis relative to the author of this epistle. “All things considered,” says he, “I see no ground for the assertion that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the author of this epistle. One circumstance affords, at least, a presumptive argument in favour of the opinion that it was really written by the elder James, and at a time when the Gospel had not been propagated among the Gentiles; namely, that it contains no exhortations to harmony between the Jewish and Gentile converts, which, after the time that the Gentiles were admitted into the Church, became absolutely necessary. Had it been written after the apostolic council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts 15, and by the younger James, we might have expected that, at least, some allusion would be made in it to the decree of that council, which was propounded by the younger James in favour of the Gentile converts; and that the epistle would contain an admonition to the Jewish converts, to consider the Gentile converts as their brethren.”-Introduction to the New Testament.
The epistle itself is entirely different in its complexion from all those in the sacred canon; the style and manner are more that of a Jewish prophet than a Christian apostle. It scarcely touches on any subject purely Christian. Our blessed Lord is only mentioned twice in it, James 1:1; 2:1; but it has nothing of his miracles or teaching, of his death or resurrection, nor of any redemption by him. It begins without any apostolical salutation, and ends without any apostolical benediction. In short, had it not been for the two slight notices of our blessed Lord, we had not known it was the work of any Christian writer. It may be considered a sort of connecting link between Judaism and Christianity, as the ministry of John Baptist was between the old covenant and the new. There is neither plan nor arrangement in it; but it contains many invaluable lessons which no serious person can read without profit.
James the less was martyred at Jerusalem about A. D. 62: and the epistle is supposed to have been written a short time before his death. Though I believe it to be the work of an unknown author, not long after the ascension of our Lord, I shall follow the usual chronology, and date it in the year 61; not because I think that to be the true date, but because it is what is generally adopted.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
-Year of the Constantinopolitan era of the world, or that used by the Byzantine historians, and other eastern writers, 5569.
-Year of the Alexandrian era of the world, 5563.
-Year of the Antiochian era of the world, 5553.
-Year of the world, according to Archbishop Usher, 4065.
-Year of the world, according to Eusebius, in his Chronicon, 4289. -Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, or that in common use, 3821. -Year of the Greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4420.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2409.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3163. -Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 1001.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, king of Babylon, 810.
-Year of the CCXth Olympiad, 1.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 808. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Frontinus, 812. -Year from the building of Rome, according to the Fasti Capitolini, 813. -Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, which was that most generally used, 814. -Year of the era of the Seleucidæ, 373. -Year of the Cæsarean era of Antioch, 109.
-Year of the Julian era, 106.
-Year of the Spanish era, 99.
-Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to Archbishop Usher, 65. -Year of the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 61.
-Year of Porcius Festus, governor of the Jews, 1.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 12.
-Year of Domitius Corbulo, governor of Syria, 2.
-Jesus, high priest of the Jews.
-Year of the Dionysian period, or Easter Cycle, 62.
-Year of the Grecian Cycle of nineteen years, or Common Golden Number, 5; or the second embolismic.
-Year of the Jewish Cycle of nineteen years, 2, or the year before the first embolismic.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 14.
-Dominical Letter, it being the first after the Bissextile, or Leap Year, D. -Day of the Jewish Passover, according to the Roman computation of time, the XIth of the calends of April, or, in our common mode of reckoning, the twenty-second of March, which happened in this year on the day after the Jewish Sabbath.
-Easter Sunday, the IVth of the Calends of April, named by the Jews the 22d of Nisan or Abib; and by Europeans in general, the 29th of March. -Epact, or age of the moon on the 22d of March, (the day of the earliest Easter Sunday possible,) 14.
-Epact, according to the present mode of computation, or the moon’s age on New Year’s day, or the Calends of January, 22.
-Monthly Epacts, or age of the moon on the Calends of each month respectively, (beginning with January,) 22, 24, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 0, 0.
-Number of Direction, or the number of days from the twenty-first of March to the Jewish Passover, 1.
-Year of the reign of Caius Tiberius Claudius Nero Cæsar, the fifth Roman monarch, computing from Octavianus, or Augustus Cæsar, properly the first Roman emperor, 8.
-Roman Consuls, C. Cæsonius Pætus and C. Petronius Turpilianus.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL8.PDF, source PDF p. 688
GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.
PREFACE
This the two epistles of Peter, the first epistle of John, and that of Jude, have been called catholic or general epistles, because, according to Œcumenius and others, they were all written, not to any particular church or churches, or to people dwelling in one place, as all St. Paul’s epistles were, but to the Jewish converts, dispersed through all the countries within the Roman empire.
That the author of this epistle was an apostle appears from the testimony of Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist., lib. 2. cap. 23,) who declares concerning that James to whom the ancients ascribed this epistle, that he was the brother, or kinsman, of the Lord; and by the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions, by all which he is styled, “James the apostle.” It is true, some have imagined that James the elder, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, was the author of this epistle; “but in this they are evidently mistaken; for James the elder was beheaded by Herod, A.D. 44, whereas this epistle was not written till a very considerable time afterward. So early as A.D. 44 the gospel does not seem to have been propagated far beyond the bounds of Palestine, and it cannot be supposed there was any very large number of the Jews of the dispersion who were then converted to the Christian faith; and, though the epistle seems to have been intended, in some measure, for the general benefit of the twelve tribes, yet more especially for those among them who were converts to the Christian religion. Besides, it is intimated, in the epistle itself, that the Jewish Christians were at this time sunk into very remarkable degeneracy, both in doctrine and practice, which is not likely to have been the case while they were under the first impressions of their conversion. And, indeed, in this epistle there are some plain intimations that the destruction of Jerusalem was near at hand, (chap. 5:1-8,) which event was accomplished about the year 70; and from this circumstance we may reasonably conclude the date of it to be about A.D. 60 or 61.” — Doddridge. This epistle, therefore, could not have been written by James the elder, but must have been the composition of James the son of Alpheus or Cleophas, by Mary, the sister of the blessed Virgin. Now, it being thus shown that James the apostle was the author of this epistle, we cannot reasonably doubt the authenticity of it, especially if we consider that “it is cited by Clemens Romanus four several times, by Ignatius in his genuine epistle to the Ephesians, and by Origen in his thirteenth homily upon Genesis. Eusebius says it was known to most, and publicly read in most Christian churches; St. Jerome, that in process of time it obtained authority. Estius observes, that ‘they who before doubted of it, in the fourth century embraced the opinion of them who received it, and that from thence no church or ecclesiastical writer ever doubted of it; but, on the contrary, all the catalogues of the books of the holy Scriptures, published by general or provincial councils, Roman bishops, or other well-informed writers, number it among the canonical Scriptures;’ which proof must give sufficient certainty of it to any Christian.” — Whitby. If any further argument were necessary to be advanced in proof of the divine authority of this epistle, it may be observed that while the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation, are omitted in the first Syriac translation of the New Testament, which was made in the beginning of the second century for the use of the converted Jews, this epistle of James hath found a place therein; an argument this of great weight. For certainly the Jewish believers, to whom that epistle was addressed and delivered, were much better judges of its authenticity than the converted Gentiles, to whom it was not sent, and who, perhaps, had no opportunity of being acquainted with it till long after it was written. In addition to the support which its antiquity gives to the authenticity of this epistle, may be mentioned the correspondence of the sentiments it contains with the tenor of the Christian doctrine. It is true, this was called in question by Luther, at the beginning of the Reformation; but deeper experience, a more perfect investigation, more extensive observation, and a maturer judgment, afterward induced him to change his opinion. As to the subjects treated on in this epistle, it must be observed that, as the author of it statedly resided at Jerusalem, (whence he hath been styled, by some of the ancient fathers, the bishop of that city,) it was very natural for him, while he confined his personal labours, to the inhabitants of Judea, to endeavour, by his writings, to extend his services to the Jewish Christians who were dispersed abroad in more distant regions. “For this purpose,” says Dr. Doddridge, “there are two points which the apostle seems to have principally aimed at, though he has not pursued them in an orderly and logical method, but in the free epistolary manner, handling them jointly or distinctly, as occasion naturally offered. And these were, to correct those errors, both in doctrine and practice, into which the Jewish Christians had fallen, which might otherwise have produced fatal consequences; and then to establish the faith, and animate the hope, of sincere believers, both under their present and their future sufferings.”
It may add some weight to the important advices, cautions, and exhortations, contained in this epistle, to observe that the author of it, for the remarkable holiness of his life, was surnamed “the Just;” and that our Lord so regarded him as to appear to him when alone, after his resurrection; (1 Corinthians 15:7;) and that about three years after Paul’s conversion, being resident at Jerusalem, he was considered as a pillar, or noted supporter, of the church there, Galatians 2:9. Hence the deference paid to his advice at the apostolic council, spoken of Acts 15. About A.D. 63, when Festus was dead, and Albinus his successor had not arrived at Jerusalem, the Jews being exceedingly enraged at the success of the gospel, Ananias II., high-priest of the Jews, caused him to be condemned, and delivered him into the hands of the people and the Pharisees, who threw him down from the stairs of the temple, when a fuller dashed out his brains with a club. His life was so holy, that Josephus considers the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment inflicted on that city for his death.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The General Epistle of James.
SUT_VOL5.PDF, source PDF p. 319
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF
JAMES.
THE gospel says that St. John, the son of Zebedee and of Salome, had a brother of the name of James, who was called by our Saviour to be one of the twelve apostles. This James was beheaded by the command of Herod Agrippa in the forty fourth year of Christ. Acts 12:1, 2. St. James, the Lord’s brother, was a different person from the above; his mother’s name was Mary, and his brethren, Joses, Judas, and Simon, who are all mentioned in the gospel. St. Mark calls him James the less, to distinguish him from James the brother of John. He was also called James the just, and by St. Paul the brother of the Lord. James the son of Alpheus is also named as one of the twelve.
To elucidate the enquiry, whether James the son of Alpheus be the same person with James the Lord’s brother, we must make some farther research. Many of the ancients have thought that he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, before he was married to the virgin Mary. But Jerome rejects this notion, and maintains that he was the son of Alpheus and of Mary, sister of the virgin, and of course the cousin of our Lord; and first cousins, in the sacred text, are often called brethren. Jerome therefore elegantly styles him the thirteenth apostle. The reader may collate the words of the evangelists, and determine for himself. Matthew 27:55,
56. Mark 6:3. 16:1. John 19:25.
When St. Paul went up to Jerusalem, he found Peter, James, and John, who were regarded as pillars in the church. Galatians 1:17. The Lord had specially appeared to James after his resurrection, as is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:7. He presided in Jerusalem for about thirty years, and no man in the church was more illustrious for piety.
His martyrdom, it would seem, was plotted by the sadducees, the scribes and pharisees, during the absence of the governor. They placed him on a pinnacle, or some elevation of the temple, and required him to declare his faith respecting Christ. The people being called together, and excited to tumult, the holy apostle nobly confessed the truth, that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. This was as a signal to the wicked; they threw him down from the elevation where he stood; but not being killed by the fall, the jews stoned him while he kneeled, praying for his enemies, till a man terminated his existence by a stroke on the head with a pole. But in about seven or eight years, the Lord avenged the blood of his saints. — The learned reader may see the whole of St. James’s martyrdom in Josephus, Ant. Jud. 20:8. Hegesippus 5. Clem. Alex. Hypot. 8.
The authenticity of this epistle has run the gauntlet of criticism, as to its design, its characters, and its doctrines; but it has fully maintained itself, as the genuine production of James, and a book divinely inspired. The ideas are clear, the theology pure, and the language bold and strong; all of which will appear in the comments. Its apparent incongruity with the writings of Paul on the subject of justification, occasioned many in former times to doubt its authenticity, but there is no real ground for such objections.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 199
JAMES
INTRODUCTION
THE AUTHOR OF THIS EPISTLE.
JAMES, the brother of Jesus, and probably the eldest son of Joseph and Mary,* was doubtless born at Nazareth, and lived there for years with his parents and his younger brothers, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and his sisters, mentioned but unnamed in history. He seems to have been specially consecrated from his birth as a Nazarite, and to have retained through life the strongest traits of that order. As a descendant of David he was an intensely national Jew, and expected a heroic Messiah who should overthrow Rome, and give a more than ancient glory and supremacy to Judea and Jerusalem. Hence he, with his younger brothers, looked upon the eldest, Jesus, notwithstanding the purity of his youthful character and the supernaturalisms that hovered round him, as mistaken if he assumed to be that patriot liberator. Hence, too, when his neighbors were amazed at his “wisdom,” Jesus, with peculiar pathos, acknowledged himself “a prophet without honour in his own house.” During the residence of the family in Galilee, when the earnest labours of our Lord in his divine mission drew upon him, from his enemies, the imputation of a demoniac, the family—mother and brothers—in a panic of unbelief went to bring him home, under assumption that his mental faculties had become overstrained by excitement. That the brothers were, at this time, not of the twelve, is certain from the fact that while they were without, the disciples were within, the house, listening to the Lord’s discourse. As the eldest of these brothers, our James of this epistle must be considered as engaged in this family mission to Jesus.
[* The question of his and his brothers’ sonship of Mary is discussed in note on Matthew 13:55. In regard to the three Jameses consult note Matthew 10:2.]
Later in our Lord’s ministry we have a still more unequivocal instance of the unbelief of James and his brothers. As the feast of tabernacles was approaching, his brothers proffered their advice to him to go and display himself to the world, pointing out the inconsistency of aspiring to be a national leader and yet, lurking “in secret.” Jesus recognises their wish for his putting himself at the head of the worldly expectants of a political Messiah. The hatred of “the world,” he tells them, cannot rest on them, for they belong to its party; as for himself, he is a rebuker of its sin, and must bide the Father’s time and method of his self-manifestation. It is remarkable that our James, who was one, and probably leader and spokesman, of these counsellors, uses the word “world” in this epistle in the very sense of the term as it occurs in our Lord’s reply. It was not until after the crucifixion and resurrection that James, with his brothers, emerges from this cloud. Luke (Acts 1:13, 14) informs us that they were present at the meeting which chose Matthias as apostle. Before mentioning them the apostolic list is given, clearly separating the apostles from the brothers. In that list two Jameses are named, one with his brother John, and the other “James the son of Alpheus.” Alphean James was, therefore, an apostle, but not a brother of Jesus; our James, then, must have been a brother, but not an apostle. The key to his conversion seems to be, in some degree, supplied by Paul’s statement that the risen Lord “was seen of James.” 1 Corinthians 15. 7.
Henceforth James resides in Jerusalem with an ever-increasing eminence. When Peter is released by the angel from prison he bids his friends “Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren.” Acts 12:17. When Paul returns from Arabia to Jerusalem, after his conversion, he sees Peter, and of the other apostles none “save James the Lord’s brother;” where he is evidently called an “apostle,” and also “the Lord’s brother,” which he would not have been if he were only cousin. Galatians 1:19. Fourteen years afterwards Paul comes to the Jerusalem Council, (comp, Acts 15:2, with Galatians 2:1,) and finds James (with Peter and John) one of “the pillars.” Galatians 2:9. At the council he sees James preside, and hears him pronounce from the Judaic side that liberalized sentence by which Gentile Christianity is excused from circumcision and the ritual, and Paul’s own apostleship is acknowledged. Yet it had been “from James,” professedly, that the ultraists had come to Paul’s Gentile field at Antioch, proclaiming the unconditional necessity of circumcision to his converts, frightening Peter from his balance, rendering Barnabas doubtful, and rousing Paul to demand the calling of the Council. Amid these elements of disturbance very conspicuous are the liberal conservatism and statesman-like dignity of James. Lastly, when Paul, at the close of his third missionary tour, visits Jerusalem, James, with the elders, received him in state and with an honour that fully shows the cordial relation in which each in his own position stood to the other. At this point it is difficult to say, with Pressense, that James’s dignity was nothing more than pre-eminence of character. And the official nature of his position is somewhat confirmed by the fact that earliest accounts seem to agree that his immediate successor was Symeon, another relative of Jesus, and that a successional line of fifteen Hebrew bishops, whose names are given by Eusebius, extended to the final desolation of Jerusalem under Hadrian. As son of David he was lineal heir to the throne at Jerusalem, where he was a Christian bishop, and, doubtless, this fact gained immunities for him and for Christianity that otherwise could not have existed.
The strong sympathy of James for his countrymen, his lofty integrity of character, his deep tinge of asceticism, derived from his lifelong Nazaritism, won for him the profound reverence of the people of Jerusalem with all but the dominating class. “He was,” says Eusebius, “by all named the Just;” the very adjective applied by Matthew to his father Joseph. The traditional description of him is given by Hegesippus in a passage found in Eusebius to this effect: “He was consecrated from his birth. Wine and strong drink he drank not, never anointed himself with oil, or used the bath. To him alone it was permitted to enter the holy place, for he wore no woollen, but linen. He was accustomed to go alone into the temple, and would be found kneeling upon his knees and praying for the forgiveness of the people, so that his knees became indurated like those of a camel; and on account of his ever bowing his knees in worship to God, and pleading for pardon for the people, and, indeed, for his wonderful piety, he was called Just, and People’s Fortress.” This description strongly suggests that James, in memory of our Lord’s great prediction of the doom of Jerusalem, lived in consecrated supplication for the remission of that terrible sentence, and for the salvation of his people. In spite of his teaching that the Messiah had come in Jesus, they revered him as a man of unparalleled holiness, and felt his prayers to be the stronghold of public safety. But there was one proud ruler who looked with murderous hatred upon this brother of the Crucified—the high priest Ananus. He was restrained by the Roman power alone, and waited his opportunity for the destruction of the “Just.” The chance at length presented itself.
A brief history of the successive Roman procurators over Judea we have given in our vol. iii, p. 233, down to Felix, in A.D. 51, who was succeeded by Festus, in A.D. 60, (note, Acts 25:1,) who was succeeded on his death by Albinus, in A.D. 62. The martyrdom of James we give in the words of Josephus:
“Ananus, thinking he had a fitting opportunity at the death of Festus, and while Albinus was yet on his way, [from Rome,] calls a session of the Sanhedrin, and arraigning before it the brother of Jesus called the Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, bringing accusation against them as transgressors, delivered them over to be stoned to death.”
As Josephus narrates the governmental action, so Hegesippus (Eusebius, 2:22) describes the popular side of the movement by which James was martyred. The profound piety of James so impressed the city that an apprehension arose among the hierarchy that he would carry the people with him. On the one hand parties of inquirers resorted to him, asking, “What is the (way or) ‘door’ of Jesus?” In other words, What is the true view in regard to your crucified brother? To these James firmly replied, “He is the Saviour;” in consequence of which testimony large numbers became believers. Alarmed at this, the Jewish leaders conceived a vain hope that James himself might be induced to modify his claims before the people, and they made him stand upon an eminence of the temple to address an explanation to the people. “O Just one,” said they, “in whom we all ought to confide, What is the door of Jesus!” He answered with a loud voice, “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus, the Son of man? He sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come in the clouds of heaven.” The enraged authorities, with Ananus probably as chief mover, then incited the mob to stone him, whilst he, kneeling, exclaimed, “I pray thee, O Father, the Lord God, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” At this moment one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, interposed, saying, “Cease; what do ye? the Just one prays for you.” But a certain fuller, taking a club belonging to his trade, struck him a fatal blow upon the head, and so “the Just” was martyred. They buried him upon the spot, and (says the narrator whom Hegesippus quotes) his pillar still remains by the temple. Hegesippus adds, that “straightway Vespasian besieged them;” but he doubtless conceptually shortens the real interval of time in order to trace a connexion between the crime of James’s murder and the punishment of the city. Between the priesthood of Ananus and the siege of Jerusalem was a period of several years.
AUTHENTICITY, DATE, AND STYLE.
This is in the group of epistles which received but a late general recognition in the Church. The most decisive fact in its favour is its acceptance into the Peshito, which is the version of the very early Syriac Church, where the epistle was first published. It is, therefore, an ancient and a home testimony. There is a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas, the apostolic father, which appears to be an imitation of James 4:7. But Origen is the first Greek father who expressly quotes the epistle with the author’s name. Eusebius classes it as disputed, yet generally recognised. It is recognised by Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, near Rome, as Scripture, but without naming the author; and is recognised by Jerome as Scripture, with the author’s name. It was universally received in the fourth century. As to the DATE, there are two opinions maintained, each by eminent scholars. The first, held generally by the earlier commentators, dated it a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem; the second, held by some later scholars, as Neander, Huther, and Alford, place its writing a short time before the Council of Jerusalem, (Acts xv,) about A.D. 45. This second we consider entirely too early.
A decisive objection to the early date is the late recognition of the epistle by the Church. If it were really written by James the brother of Jesus from Jerusalem to the general body of Hebrew Christians, in the Greek language, so early as A.D. 45, it would have obtained an early circulation, a general notoriety, and an established authority among the earliest documents of the New Testament canon. On the other hand, if published shortly before the overthrow of Jerusalem, we easily understand how, amid the tumults of the times, it should have failed of early general recognition. A second objection to the early date is its assumption of a widespread and well-established Christian public already existing in the Jewish “dispersion.” Where was this ecumenical audience in A.D. 45? Alford’s reply that it appears in Acts 11:19, and following verses, is entirely insufficient. A few scattered clusters of converts in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, are very far short of meeting the demand. The whole air of the epistle presupposes a large body of Christian Hebrews scattered through the then civilized world, with Jerusalem for its spiritual capital. Apparently in this epistle, as in Hebrews and the Pastoral and Catholic epistles, the discussions and strifes about circumcision and ritual are long past. In the Pastorals, St. Paul inveighs against the Gnosticizing Jews; in the Catholic, John against the Docetists; in Hebrews, Paul against the Alexandrines; while James, from the Hebrew side, only takes issue with the antinomians who misquoted Paul’s doctrine of justification “to their own destruction.” This implication, that our epistle appeared later than Paul’s Romans, is pronounced by Alford “a superficial view;” and in the sense that it lies patent on the surface of the facts we acknowledge it to be superficial, but none the less fundamental and certain. There is nothing “improbable” in supposing that James delicately avoids personal collision with Paul himself, yet graphically states the counter truth in regard to faith and works, in order that the true doctrinal balance should be maintained in the Christian Church.
As to the state of things apparent in the epistle, we may readily concede that the mention of church and elders by no means proves a late period, for these appear at the very origin of Christianity. But in James the Churches are world-wide; they have their regular-built synagogues; they have generally fallen into fixed habits, such as obsequiousness to the rich, an antinomian perversion of the Pauline doctrine of faith, and a too great loquacity of would-be teachers and “masters.” The eloquent denunciatory apostrophe to “rich men” implies their established relations to the Church, while the woes pronounced upon them intimate the impending doom overhanging the city in which it was written.
As we see a probable allusion to the martyrdom of James in Hebrews 13:7, so Hebrews must have appeared after this epistle. The order of facts we think as follows: This epistle; the martyrdom of James; Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews; the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, probably with Timothy; and the Jewish war and overthrow. As the death of James took place immediately upon the appointment of Albinus, its date must have been A.D. 62. How long this epistle was written before that event, though certainly not long, can only be a guess. We put it conjecturally at A.D. 60. The permanent residence of James at Jerusalem places it beyond reasonable doubt that his epistle was written from that city. At the same time it is noted that the natural scenes alluded to by the writer were those familiar to a Jerusalemite. The sea is not far distant, (James 1:6; 3:4;) figs, oil, and wine are plenty, (James 3:12;) there are bitter fountains, (James 3:11, 12;) droughts and consequent danger of crops, (James 3:17, 15;) the burning wind, (James 1:11;) and the former and latter rain, (v, 7.) The writer’s relationship to Jesus seems to appear from his many similar allusions to nature. The resemblances to the style of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, are remarkable. Alford gives the following list, (iv, p. 105:) James 1:2, with Matthew 5:10-12; 1:4, with Matthew 5:48; 1:5 and 5:15, with Matthew 7:7, etc.; 1:9, with Matthew 5:3; 1:20, with Matthew 5:22; 2:13, with Matthew 6:14, 15, and 5:7; 2:14, etc., with Matthew 7:21, etc.; 3:17, 18, with Matthew 5:9; 4:4, with Matthew 6:24; 4:10, with Matthew 5:3, 4; 4:11, with Matthew vii, i, etc.; 5:2, with Matthew 6:19; 5:10, with Matthew 5:12; 5:12, with Matthew 5:33, etc.; and from other discourses of our Lord: 1:14, with Matthew 15:19; 4:12, with Matthew 10:28. Compare also the places where the rich are denounced with Luke 6:24, etc.
READERS ADDRESSED.
The opening superscription, “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” certainly means the entire Jewish nation. They are the Messianic race, the writer’s own kinsmen: nay, as a descendant of David, they are his own hereditary people. Yet it is to an inner circle of the tribes that his doctrines are immediately addressed. He is a servant of Christ, (verse 1,) and consoles his “brethren” in trial; his “synagogue” (English version, assembly, James 2:2) is a Christian Church; and his whole aim is to portray the formation of a “perfect” man, or model Christian, according to the gospel “law of liberty,” by which the soul is most perfectly free in the most perfect obedience to righteousness. Yet he does not lose sight of the wider circle of the Messianic race. It is to that broader audience that he addresses his rebuke of the belligerent spirit in 4:1-10; and we cannot avoid the conclusion, that in his prophetic apostrophe to “rich men,” in 5:1-6, he denounces, not the Jewish aristocracy, but the Roman oppressors under whom Jew and Christian were alike crushed. We think the current view of most commentators, that these “rich men” were “brethren,” is entirely inadmissible.
The style is lucid, pointed, rich with figures drawn from nature, and, while flowing much in a clear, didactic current, rises, when the topic demands, into the loftiest and most impetuous torrent of denunciatory eloquence. The purity of its Greek is not so inexplicable a problem as Alford implies. Men endowed with a natural facility for acquiring and using with purity and power a foreign tongue are by no means a rare phenomenon.
Course of Thought in This Epistle.
WHD_CO14.PDF, source PDF p. 206
COURSE OF THOUGHT IN THIS EPISTLE.
I. THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN UNDER TRIAL James 1:1-18
1. Trials, as conducive to firmness and perfecting Christian character, are a joy James 1:1-4
2. Wisdom for this Christian perfection, obtainable from God, by faithful prayer, for poor or rich James 1:5-11
3. Blessedness of enduring temptation; which (temptation) is not from God; from whom the good gift alone James 1:12-18 II. WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE—THE PROPER TEMPER, BEHAVIOUR, AND FAITH THERE James 1:19-3:18
1. No loquacity or irritation but candid hearing James 1:19-21
2. Being not hearers only, but doers of the word James 1:22-27
3. Without obsequiousness to the rich incomers to Synagogue James 2:1-4
4. For the rich are generally persecutors and blasphemers James 2:5-7
5. And violating the law on this or any one point breaks the entire law James 2:8-13
6. Christian Synagogue rejects workless faith as unjustifying James 2:14-26
7. Rejects, too, many teachers with untamable and self-contradictory tongues James 3:1-12
8. True test of teachers and hearers, a heaven-descended wisdom, evinced by rectitude and peacefulness of temper and life James 3:13-18
III. OUTSIDE THE CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE—PUBLIC DISTURBANCES, IRREVERENCE, OPPRESSIVE WEALTH James 4:1-5:20
1. Wars and public commotions, whence come they? And what the remedy? James 4:1-10
2. Christian avoidance of even bitter and hostile speech James 4:11, 12
3. And of arrogant ignoring of God James 4:13-17
4. Denunciatory address to the rich for oppression, self-indulgence, and persecution James 5:1-6
5. The Christian sufferer under these wrongs pointed to the judgment day James 5:7-11
6. Cautions against violent use of language 12
CONCLUSIONS.—
1. Consolations for the sad, the merry, the sick; the prayer of faith James 5:13-18
2. The reclaim of the wanderer, its reward James 5:19, 20