Chapter XXV: Part 25

There were, however, other “brothers” of Jesus, besides those who were apostles. By Matthew and Mark is also mentioned Joses, who is nowhere mentioned as an apostle; and there may have been others still, whose names are not given; for, in the account given, in the first chapter of Acts, it is recorded that, besides all the eleven apostles, there were also assembled in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren. It is very likely, that Jesus may have had several other cousins, who followed his fortunes, though they were not considered by him, qualified to rank among his chosen apostles. But a very prominent objection to the notion that they were the children of his mother, with whom they are mentioned in such close connection,――is, that when Jesus was on the cross, he commended her to the care of John, his beloved disciple, as though she were destitute of any immediate natural protector; and certainly, if she had at that time several sons living, who were full-grown, she could not have needed to be intrusted thus to the kindness of one who claimed no relationship whatever to her; but would, of course, have been secure of a home, and a comfortable support, so long as her sons could have worked for her. These also may have been those brethren who did not believe in him, and who considered him beside himself, though there seems no good reason to except any of those who are mentioned by Matthew and Mark, as his brethren,――James, Juda, Joses and Simon.

Beyond these allusions to him, in connection with others, the gospels take no notice whatever of this apostle; and it is only in the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the epistles of Paul, that he is mentioned with any great distinctness. In all those passages in the apostolic writings where he is referred to, he is presented as a person of high standing and great importance, and his opinions are given in such a manner as to convey the impression that they had great weight in the regulation of the apostolic doings. This is particularly evident in the only passage of the Acts of the Apostles where his words are given, which is in the account of the consultation at Jerusalem about the great question of communion between the circumcised and uncircumcised. On this occasion, James is mentioned in such a way as to make it evident that he was considered the most prominent among those who were zealous for the preservation of the Mosaic forms, and to have been by all such, regarded in the light of a leader, since his decision seems to have been esteemed by them as a sort of law; and the perfect acquiescence of even the most troublesome in the course which he recommended, is a proof of his predominant influence. The tone and style of the address itself, also imply that the speaker thought he had good reason to believe that others were looking to him in particular, for the decision which should regulate their opinions on this doubtful question. After Simon Peter, as the great chief of the apostles, had first expressed his opinion on the question under discussion, and had referred to his own inspired divine revelations of the will of God in respect to the Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas next gave a full account of their operations, and of the signs and wonders with which God had followed their labors.

After the full exposition made by Paul and Barnabas, of all their conduct, James arose to make his reply in behalf of the close adherents of Mosaic forms, and said, “Men and brethren! listen to me. Simeon has set forth in what manner God did first condescend to take from the heathen a people for his name. And with this, all the words of the prophets harmonize, as it is written, ‘After these things I will turn back, and will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will both rebuild its ruins and erect it again, IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND may seek out the Lord, together with all the heathen who are called by my name, saith the Lord who made all things.’ ‘Well known to God are all his works from eternity.’ So I think that we ought not to make trouble for those who have turned from the heathen, to God; but that we should direct them to refrain from things that have been offered unto idols, and from fornication, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For Moses has, from ancient generations, in these cities, those who make him known,――his law being read every sabbath day.” This opinion, formed and delivered in a truly Christian spirit of compromise, seems to have had the effect of a permanent decision; and the great leader of the rigid Judaizers, having thus renounced all opposition to the adoption of the converted heathen into full and open Christian communion, though without the seals of the Mosaic covenant,――all those who had originated this vexatious question, ceased their attempts to distract the harmony of the apostles; and the united opinions of the great apostolic chief, who had first opened the gates of Christ’s kingdom to the heathen, and of the eminent defender of Mosaic forms, so silenced all discussion, that thenceforth these opinions, thus fully expressed, became the common law of the Christian churches, throughout the world, in all ages.

This address of James (Acts xv. 13‒21.) may justly be pronounced
the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the
New Testament, of equal length,――almost every verse in it
containing some point, which has been made the subject of some
dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this
discourse:――“It consists of three parts;――the _Exordium_, (verse
13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated
to secure the good-will of his auditors;――the _Statement_,
(verses 16‒18,) containing also a confirmation of it from the
prophets, and the reason;――the _Proposition_, (verses 19‒20,)
that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are
only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to
the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.”

_Simeon._ (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter’s first name,
has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant,
since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of
Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the
person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are
the same in his case as in Peter’s. But Simeon (Συμεων) and
Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged
form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the
former.――This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless
meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in
general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.

_Has condescended to take._ Common translation: “did visit them
to take,” &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the
meaning which Bretschneider has given to επισκεπτομαι, _benigne
voluit_, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian
version.

_Harmonize._ (verse 15.) The original (συμφωνοῦσιν) refers
in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of
accordance in _sound_, (_symphony_,) and thence by a metonymy
is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy
is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in
the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the
Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or
the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is
describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that
the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that
all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James _accomodates_ to the
present purpose, and _applies_ to the propagation of the gospel
among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian
community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full
exegesis of this passage.)

_Well known to God are all his works._ These words have been
made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators,
who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their
connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new
and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but
have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of
the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole
emphasis of the sentence upon the word “_all_,”――“Known unto
God are _all_ his works from the beginning of ages.” James is
arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not
only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;――not to one nation
merely, but to _all_ his creatures. “Thus saith the Lord who
makes (or does) _all_ things.” The original Hebrew of the
prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a
circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in
this ♦_accommodation_ of the words to this form and purpose.

♦ “accomodation” replaced with “accommodation”

_So I think_, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted
to find in the original of this verb (κρινω) a peculiar force,
implying that James announced his decision with a kind of
judicial emphasis, in the character of “Bishop of Jerusalem.”
The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield’s
numerous references to classical authority for the simple
meaning of “think.” The difficulties in the twentieth verse are
so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such
protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators,
that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.

The great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown in several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the apostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release from prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, he, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to tell _James_ and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was altogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be considered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any message intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In the same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish Peter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the individual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.

But no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked, as in Paul’s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents connected with them. He there mentions “James, the brother of our Lord,” in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the apostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above adduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus, was an apostle. Paul’s words are, “Other of the apostles, (besides Peter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord’s brother;” an expression which all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that this James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen years after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James, and, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those three whom he mentions by name. He says, “When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This very peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so strange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that the _Cephas_ here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol, Peter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he was not Peter,――a notion which might seem plausible at first glance, from the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul has been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname, while in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word, Cephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except as showing that in this connection there was something which suggested a preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the two other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very peculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained by a consideration of the subject in connection with which these personages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of the sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important person to be quoted in reference to Paul’s reception, while the dissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand, being himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his having been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel, was, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul’s views, of the noble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of really less importance in Paul’s statement, than the name of James, who was everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being mentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident that the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties, and heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.

The especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic forms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same epistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed that it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian brethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic institutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every reasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly hindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute adherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code, were required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly reverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise to think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits would be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in life they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings of Christ’s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his accordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy, yet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go to all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his readiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of Jewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that the original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous observance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the Levitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with various defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious Jew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to Peter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic associate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions of needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief ministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been narrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first part of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple, gone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving Gentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any liability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of Levitical purity,――yet when some persons came down from ♦Jerusalem, from James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the strict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James had been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter, and to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the way of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his own character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who so faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this might be, Peter’s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending James, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not have refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct, which he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the slightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion is reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of expediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great associate, on points of Levitical law.

♦ “Jerasalem” replaced with “Jerusalem”

HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE.

From these and other passages, implying a great eminence of James in the direction of the plans of evangelization, it is evident, that, in the absence of Peter, he must have been the most important person among the apostles at Jerusalem; and after the permanent removal of the commissioned apostolic chief, to other and wider fields of action, his rank, as principal person among all the ministers of Christ in Jerusalem, must have been very decidedly established. From this circumstance has originated the notion that he was “bishop of Jerusalem;” and this is the title with which the later Fathers have attempted to decorate him,――as if any honor whatever could be conferred on an apostle, by giving him the title of a set of inferior ministers appointed by the original commissioned preachers of Christ, to be merely their substitutes in the instruction and management of those numerous churches which could not be blessed by the presence of an apostle, and to be their successors in the supreme earthly administration of the affairs of the Christian community, when the great founders had all been removed from their labors, to their rest. How nearly the duties performed by James corresponded to the modern episcopal function, it is utterly impossible to say, for the simple reason that not the slightest record of his actions is left, to which references can be made, on this interesting question. That he was the most eminent of the apostles resident at Jerusalem, is quite clear; and that by him, under these circumstances, were performed the great proportion of the pastoral duties among the believers in that city, may be most justly supposed; and his influence over Christian converts would by no means be limited by the walls of the Holy city. In his apostolic functions, he, of course, became known to all resorting to that place; and his faithful and eminent ministry in the capital of the Jewish religion would extend not only his fame, but the circle of his personal acquaintances, throughout all parts of the world, from which pilgrims came to the great annual festivals in Jerusalem. His immense apostolic diocese, therefore, could not be very easily bounded, nor was it defined with any exactness, to prevent it from running into the limits of those divisions of the fields of duty, in which Peter, Paul, John and others, had been more especially laboring. His influence among the Jews in general, (whether believers in Christ or not,) would, from various accounts, appear to have been greater than that of any other apostle; and this, combined with the circumstances of his location, would seem to entitle him very fairly to the rank and character of the apostle of the “DISPERSION.” This was a term transferred from the abstract to the concrete sense, and was applied in a collective meaning to the great body of Jews in all parts of the world, through which they were scattered by chance, choice, or necessity.

_Bishop of Jerusalem._ The first application of this title to
James, that appears on record, is in Eusebius, who quotes the
still older authority of Clemens Alexandrinus. (Church History,
II. 1.) The words of Eusebius are, “Then James, who was called
the brother of our Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, and
whom, on account of his eminent virtue, those of ancient times
surnamed the Just, is said to have first held the chair of
the bishopric of Jerusalem. Clemens, in the sixth book of his
Institutes, distinctly confirms this. For he says that ‘after
the Saviour’s ascension, although the Lord had given to Peter,
James, and John, a rank before all the rest, yet they did not
therefore contend among themselves for the first distinction,
but chose James the Just, to be bishop of Jerusalem.’ And the
same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, says these
things of him, besides: ‘To James the Just, and John, and Peter,
did the Lord, after the resurrection, grant the knowledge, [the
_gnosis_, or knowledge of mysteries,] and these imparted it to
the other disciples.’”

In judging of the combined testimony of these two ancient
writers, it should be observed that it is not by any means
so ancient and direct as that of Polycrates, on the identity
of Philip the apostle, and Philip the deacon, which these
very Fathers quote with assent. Nor can their opinion be worth
any more in this case than in the other. On no point, where a
knowledge of the New Testament, and a sound judgment are the
only guides, can the testimony of the Fathers be considered
of any value whatever; for the most learned of them betray a
disgraceful ignorance of the Bible in their writings; nor can
the most acute of them compare, for sense and judgment, with
the most ordinary of modern commentators. The whole course of
Patristic theology affords abundant instances of the very low
powers of these writers, for the discrimination of truth and
falsehood. The science of historical criticism had no existence
among them――nor indeed is there any reason why they should be
considered persons of any historical authority, except so far
as they can refer directly to the original sources, and to the
persons immediately concerned in the events which they record.
On all matters of less unexceptionable authority, where their
testimony does not happen to contradict known truth or common
sense, all that can be said in their favor, is, that the thing
thus reported is not improbable; but all supplements to the
accounts given in the New Testament, unless they refer directly
to eye-witnesses, may be pronounced very suspicious and wholly
uncertain. In this case, Eusebius’s opinion that James, the
brother of our Lord was the son of Joseph, is worth no more
than that of the latest commentator; because he had no more
historical aids than the writers of these days. Nor is the story
of Clemens, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, worth any more;
because he does not refer to any historical evidence.

HIS EPISTLE.

Noticing some peculiar circumstances in the condition of his countrymen, throughout this wide dispersion, the apostle addressed to them a written exhortation, suited to their spiritual necessities. In the opening, he announces himself simply by the title of “James, the _servant_ of Jesus Christ,” not choosing to ground any claim for their respect or obedience on the accidents of birth or relationship, but on the mere character of one devoted to the cause of Christ for life and for death,――and entitled, by the peculiar commission of his Lord, to teach and direct his followers in his name. In consequence of this omission of the circumstance of relationship, a query has been even raised whether the author of this epistle could really be the same person as the brother of Jesus. But a trifle of this kind can never be allowed to have any weight in the decision of such a question. He directs himself, in general terms, to all the objects of his extended apostolic charge;――“to the twelve tribes that are in the _Dispersion_.”

A brief review of the contents of the epistle will furnish the best means of ascertaining its scope and immediate object, and will also afford just ground for tracing the connection, between the design of the apostle and the remarkable events in the history of those times, which are recorded by the other writers of that age. He first urges them to persevere in faith, without wavering or sinking under all the peculiar difficulties then pressing on them; and refers them to God as the source of that wisdom which they need for their direction. From him alone, all good proceeds; but no sin, nor temptations to sin. The cause of that, lies in man himself: let him not then blasphemously ascribe his evil dispositions nor the occasions of their development, to God; but seeking wisdom and strength from above, let him resist the tempter:――blessed is the man that thus endures and withstands the trial. He next points out to them the utter worthlessness of all the distinctions of rank and wealth among those professing the faith of Jesus. Such base respect of persons on the score of accidental worldly advantages, is denounced, as being foreign to the spirit of Christianity. True religion requires something more than a profession of faith; its substance and its signs are the energetic and constant practice of virtuous actions, and it allows no dispensations or excuses to any one. He next dwells especially on the high responsibilities of those who assume the office of teaching. The tongue requires a most watchful restraint, lest passion or haste pervert the advantages of eminence and influence, into the base instruments of human wrath. The true manifestations of religious knowledge and zeal, must be in a spirit of gentleness, forbearance, and love,――not in the expressions of hatred, nor in cursing. But of this pure, heavenly spirit, their late conduct had shown them to be lamentably destitute. Strifes, tumults, and bitter denunciations, had betrayed their un-Christian character. They needed therefore, to humbly seek this meek spirit from God, and not proudly to assume the prerogatives of judgment and condemnation, which belonged to Him alone. His condemnation was indeed about to fall on their country. With most peculiar ruin would it light on those now reveling in their ill-gotten riches, and rejoicing in the vain hope of a perpetual prosperity. But let the faithful persevere, cheered by the memory of the bright examples of the suffering pious of other days, and by the hope of the coming of their Lord, whose appearance in glory and judgment, would soon crown their fervent prayers. Meanwhile, supported by this assurance, let them continue in a virtuous course, watching even their words, visiting the sick in charity and mercy, and all exhorting and instructing each other in the right way.

The peculiar difficulties of the times here referred to, are――a state of bloody intestine commotion, disturbing the peace of society, and desolating the land with hatred, contention and murder;――a great inequality of condition, in respect to property,――some amassing vast wealth by extortion, and abusing the powers and privileges thereby afforded, to the purposes of tyranny,――condemning and killing the just;――a perversion of laws for the gratification of private spite;――and everywhere a great occasion for good men to exercise patience and faith, relying upon God alone, for the relief of the community from its desperate calamities. But a prospect was already presented of a consummation of these distracting troubles, in the utter ruin of the wicked; a change in the condition of things was about to occur, which would bring poverty and distress upon the haughty oppressors, who had heaped treasure together only for _the last days_. The brethren therefore, had but a little time to wait for _the coming of the Lord_. Both of these two latter expressions point very clearly at the destruction of Jerusalem,――for this is the uniform reference which these terms had, in those days, among the Christians. Jesus had promised his chosen disciples, that their generation should not pass away, till all those awful calamities which he denounced on the Jewish state, should be fulfilled; and for this event all his suffering followers were now looking, as the seal of the truth of Christ’s word. Searching in the history of the times, a few years previous to that final desolation, it is found in the testimony of impartial writers, that these were the too faithful details of the evils which then raged in Palestine. “For, under Felix, and again under Portius Festus, desperate patriots marched through the country, in whole bodies, and forcibly tore away with them the inhabitants of open places, and if they would not follow them, set fire to the villages, and enacted bloody scenes. They even made their appearance in the capital and at the feasts, where they mixed among the crowd of people, and committed many secret assassinations with concealed weapons. As to that which regards the external circumstances and the civil condition of the Jews and Jewish Christians, they were far from being agreeable. The praetors, under all manner of pretexts, made extortions, and abused their legal authority for the sake of enriching themselves; a person was obliged to purchase with money his liberation from their prisons, as well as his safety and his rights; he might even purchase a license to commit crimes. In this state, under these circumstances, and in this degree of civil disorder, the author might probably have regarded his countrymen; for, although he wrote to the whole world, yet his native land passed more immediately before his eyes.”

For the sources, and for the minuter proofs and illustrations of
these views, see Hug’s Introduction, as translated by Wait, Vol.
II. §§ 148‒159.

In the immediate consideration of all these present iniquities and coming desolations, he wrote to prepare the believing Jews, in Palestine more particularly, but also throughout the world, for the overwhelming consummation of their nation’s destiny. Terrible as would be this doom, to the wicked, and mournful as would be these national desolations, to all, the righteous should find consolations in the peaceful establishment of the spiritual kingdom of their Lord, over the ruins of the dominion of his murderers,――of those who had “condemned and killed the just One, though he did not resist them.” But in all these awful signs, should the faithful see the forewarned coming of the Son of Man; and as he himself told his chosen apostles, “then should they lift up their heads; for their redemption drew nigh.”

Besides these external troubles, there were others of a different character, arising and existing solely among those who professed the religion of Christ. The instructions given by Paul, in reference to the absolute necessity of faith, and the insufficiency of a mere formal routine of religious duties, had been most grossly perverted into a warrant for the all-sufficiency of a mere _belief_, as the means of salvation;――an error by no means limited in its mischievous existence, to the days of the apostles, but so comfortable to the minds of mere religious formalists, in all ages of Christianity, that a new revelation, like that here made by James, though directly repeated through every century of the Christian era, would be equally vain, for the prevention or the remedy of this never-dying heresy. All the words of James on the subject of faith and works, are evidently aimed at the refutation of those who had taken advantage of the opinions which Paul had expressed, on the same subjects; but which were expressed with a totally different reference, being stated not generally nor abstractly, but in application to some particular dogmatic errors. James, after distinctly condemning the “unlearned and unstable, who thus wrested to their own destruction the things hard to be understood in the writings of Paul,” next attacks certain persons who, without being authorized or qualified, had assumed the station and responsibility of religious teachers. Many persons taking up the office of instructors in this manner, had caused great confusion, by using their hasty tongues, in mere polemic and denunciatory discourse, condemning and cursing, in unmeasured terms, those who differed from them in opinion. These he rebukes, as thus “giving occasion for offense and error to all;” and sets forth the character of that true wisdom which comes from above, and which is peaceable, “sowing the fruit of righteousness in peace.”

_Many teachers._ In order to understand this reference,
it should be noticed that the word _masters_ in the common
translation of chap. iii. verse 1, of this epistle, is not to
be taken in the common modern sense, but in that of “religious
teachers.” The original is not Κυριοι (_Kurioi_,) “Lords,”
“Masters,”――but διδασκαλοι (_didaskaloi_,) “teachers.” The
translators probably intended it only in the latter sense; for
the word “Master” really has that meaning in such connections,
in good authors of that age; and even at this day, in England,
the same usage of the word is very common, though almost unknown
in this country, except in technical phrases.

HIS DEATH.

The epistle was probably the last great act of his life. No record, indeed, of any of his labors, except this living instance, exists of his later years; but there is certain ground for supposing that his residence in Jerusalem was characterized by a steady course of apostolic labors, in the original sphere of action, to which the twelve had first confined themselves for many years. When, by the special calls of God, in providences and in revelations, one and another of the apostles had been summoned to new and distant fields, east, west, north and south, “preaching repentance and remission of sins, in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” and bearing witness of his works, thence, “through Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth,” there was still needed one, who, highly “indued with power from on high,” might remain in that city to which all the sons of Israel, throughout the world, looked as the fountain of religious light. There too was the scene of the first great triumphs of the Christian faith, as well as of the chief toils, the trials, and the death of the great founder himself. All these circumstances rendered Jerusalem still an important post to the apostles; and they therefore left on that station the apostle, whose steady courage in the cause of Christ, and blameless yet jealous conformity to the law of Moses, fitted him at once for the bold maintenance of his Master’s commission, and for the successful advancement of the gospel among the faithful believers of the ancient covenant. Thus James continued at Jerusalem throughout his life, being kept at this important station, perhaps on account of his age, as well as for his fitness in other respects; as there is some reason to think that he was older than those more active apostles who assumed the foreign departments of the work. His great weight of character, as evinced in the council of the apostles, and by the fear which Peter showed of offending him, very naturally gives the idea of a greater age than that of the other apostles; and this notion is furthermore confirmed by the circumstance that the _brethren_ of Jesus, among whom this apostle was certainly included, are mentioned as assuming an authority over their divine relation, and claiming a right to control and direct his motions, which could never have been assumed, according to the established order of Jewish families, unless they had been older than he. It is therefore a rational supposition, that James was one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, of the apostles; and at any rate he appears to have been more advanced in life than any of those who are characterized with sufficient distinctness to offer the means of conjecture on this point.

From the high charge of this great central apostolic station, in which he had, through a course of more than twenty-five years, accumulated the ripe honors of a “righteous” name upon his hoary head, James was now called to end a career, which so much resembled that of the ancient prophets, by a death equally assimilated to the bloody fate to which so many of them had been doomed by the subjects of their reproofs. The fact and circumstances of his death are given on an authority so blameless and disinterested as not to admit of dispute; nor is there any thing in the narrative which can throw the slightest suspicion upon it. The eminent Jewish historian, Josephus, himself a resident in Jerusalem at that time, and an eye-witness of these events, and acquainted by sight and fame, at least, with James, has given a clear account of the execution of this apostle, which can best evince its own merit by being given entire.

The account which Josephus has given, shows that the death of James, must have happened during Paul’s imprisonment, and is delivered in the following words:――“The emperor, being informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and very ambitious. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who, as we have also observed before, are above all other Jews severe in their judicial sentences. This then being the temper of Ananus, he, thinking he had a convenient opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was not yet arrived, called a council, and brought before it James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, with several others, where they were accused of being transgressors of the law, and stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also the most learned in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They sent therefore privately to the king, and entreated him to give orders to Ananus to abstain from such conduct in future. And some went to meet Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria, and represented to him, that Ananus had no right to call a council without his permission. Albinus, approving of what they said, wrote a very severe letter to Ananus, threatening to punish him for what he had done. And king Agrippa took away from him the priesthood, after he had possessed it three months, and appointed in his stead Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.” From this account of Josephus we learn, that James, notwithstanding he was a Christian, was so far from being an object of hatred to the Jews, that he was rather beloved and respected. At least his death excited very different sensations from that of the first James; and the Sadducean high priest, at whose instigation he suffered, was punished for his offense by the loss of his office.

This translation is taken from Marsh’s Michaelis, (Introduction,
Vol. IV. pp. 287, 288.) The original is in the Jewish
Antiquities of Josephus. (XX. ix. 1.)

This however, is not the statement which the early Christian writers give of the death of James the Just; but from the oldest historian of the church, is derived another narrative, so highly decorated with minute particulars, that while it is made very much more interesting than the concise and simple account given by Josephus, it is at the same time rendered altogether suspicious by the very circumstance of its interesting minuteness. Josephus had no temptation whatever to pervert the statement. He gives it in terms strongly condemnatory of the whole transaction; but the Christian writers, as they have shown in other such instances, are too often disposed to sacrifice truth, for the sake of making a story whose incidents harmonize best with their notions of a desirable martyrdom. The story however, deserves a place here, both for the sake of a fair comparison, and on account of its own interesting character.

“James, the brother of our Lord, surnamed the Just, was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor ate any creature wherein was life. There never came a razor upon his beard;――he anointed not himself with oil, neither did he use a bath. To him only it was lawful to enter into the holy of holies. He wore no woolen, but only linen garments; and entered the temple alone, where he was seen upon his knees, supplicating for the forgiveness of the people, till his knees became hard, and covered with a callus, like those of a camel. On account of his eminent righteousness, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies ‘the people’s fortress.’ Then, after describing the divisions among the people respecting Christianity, the account states, that all the leading men among the Scribes and Pharisees, came to James, and entreated him to stand up on the battlements of the temple, and persuade the people assembled at the passover, to have juster notions concerning Jesus; and that, when thus mounted on the battlements, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye question me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He even sits in heaven, at the right hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of heaven.’ With this declaration, many were satisfied, and cried ‘Hosanna to the Son of David.’ But the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees, mortified at what they had done, produced a riot; for they consulted together, and then cried out, ‘Oh! oh! even the Just one is himself deceived.’ They went up, therefore, and cast down the Just, and said among themselves, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he did not die with his fall; but turning, he kneeled, saying, ‘I entreat, O Lord God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while they were stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rahab, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, ‘Cease; what do ye? Justus prays for us.’ But a certain one among them, a fuller, took a lever, such as he had used to squeeze garments, and smote Justus on the head. Thus he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him in that place, and his grave-stone yet remains near the temple.”

This story is from Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, to whom
alone we owe its preservation,――the works of the original author
being all lost, except such fragments, accidentally quoted by
other writers. The translation I have taken from the MS. of
the Rev. Dr. Murdock, to whose research I am already so much
indebted in similar instances.

The comments of Michaelis on these two testimonies, may be
appropriately subjoined. (Introduction, Vol. IV. pp. 288, 291.
Marsh’s translation.)

“The account given by Hegesippus, contains an intermixture of truth and fable; and in some material points contradicts the relation of Josephus, to ♦which no objection can be made. It confirms however the assertion, that James was in great repute among the Jews, even among those who did not believe in Christ; and that they paid him much greater deference than we might suppose they would have shown to a Christian bishop, and a brother of Christ, whom they had crucified. Many parts of the preceding account are undoubtedly fabulous, especially that part which relates to the request of the Jews, that James would openly declare from the battlements of the temple, that Jesus was not the Messiah. Indeed, if this were true, it would not redound to his honor; for it would imply that he had acted with duplicity, and not taken a decided part in favor of Christianity, or the Jews could never have thought of making such a request. But that a person, who was the head of the church in Jerusalem, should have acted such a double part as to leave it undecided what party he had embraced, and that too for thirty years after the ascension, is in itself almost incredible. It is inconsistent likewise with the relation of Josephus, and is virtually contradicted both by Paul and by Luke, who always speak of him with the utmost respect, and have no where given the smallest hint, that he concealed the principal doctrines of the Christian religion.”

♦ “whieh” replaced with “which”

Thus gloriously ended the steady, bright career of “the second apostolic martyr.” Honored, even by the despisers of the faith and haters of the name of Christ, with the exalted title of “THE JUST,” he added the solemn witness of his blood, to that of his divine brother and Lord, and to that of his young apostolic brother, whose name and fate were equally like his,――a testimony which sealed anew the truth of his own record against the sins of the oppressors, published in his last great earthly work:――“Ye have condemned and killed the JUST; yet he doth not resist you.”

SIMON ZELOTES.

HIS NAME.

THE ever-recurring difficulty about the distinctive appellations of the apostles, forms the most prominent point of inquiry in the life of this person, otherwise so little known as to afford hardly a single topic for the apostolic historian. The dispute here indeed involves no question about personal identity, but merely refers to the coincidence of signification between the two different words by which he is designated in the apostolic lists, to distinguish him from the illustrious chief of the twelve, who bore the same name with him. Matthew and Mark in giving the names of the apostles,――the only occasion on which they name him,――call him “Simon the Cananite;” but Luke, in a similar notice, mentions him as “Simon Zelotes;” and the question then arises, whether these two distinctive appellations have not a common origin. In the vernacular language of Palestine, the word from which _Cananite_ is derived, has a meaning identical with that of the root of the Greek word _Zelotes_; and hence it is most rationally concluded, that the latter is a translation of the former,――Luke, who wrote entirely for Greeks, choosing to translate into their language a term whose original force could be apprehended only by those acquainted with the local circumstances with which it was connected. The name _Zelotes_, which may be faithfully translated by its English derivative, _Zealot_, has a meaning deeply involved in some of the most bloody scenes in the history of the Jews, in the apostolic age. This name, or rather its Hebrew original, was assumed by a set of ferocious desperadoes, who, under the honorable pretense of a holy _zeal_ for their country and religion, set all law at defiance, and constituting themselves at once the judges and the executors of right, they went through the land waging war against the Romans, and all who peacefully submitted to that foreign sway. This sect, however, did not arise by this name until many years after the death of Jesus, and there is no good reason to suppose that Simon derived his surname from any connection with the bloody Zealots who did their utmost to increase the last agonies of their distracted country, but from a more holy zeal displayed in a more righteous manner. It may have been simply characteristic of his general conduct, or it may have referred to some particular occasion in which he decidedly evinced this trait of zeal in a righteous cause.

_The Cananite._――In respect to this name, a most absurd and
unjustifiable blunder has stood in all the common versions of it,
which deserves notice. This is the representation of the word
in the form, “_Canaanite_,” which is a gross perversion of the
original. The Greek word is Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_,) a totally
different word from that which is used both in the New Testament,
and in the Alexandrian version of the Old, to express the Hebrew
term for an inhabitant of Canaan. The name of the land of Canaan
is always expressed by the aspirated form, Χανααν, which in
the Latin and all modern versions is very properly expressed
by “_Chanaan_.” In Matthew xv. 22, where the Canaanitish woman
is spoken of, the original is Χαναναια, (_Chananaia_,) nor is
there any passage in which the name of an inhabitant of Canaan
is expressed by the form Κανανιτης, (_Cananites_,) with the
smooth K, and the single A. Yet the Latin ecclesiastic writers,
and even the usually accurate Natalis Alexander, express this
apostle’s name as “Simon _Chananaeus_,” which is the word for
“Canaanite.”

The true force and derivation of the word is this. The name
assumed in the language of Palestine by the ferocious sect above
mentioned, was derived from the Hebrew primitive קנא (_Qana_
or _Kana_,) and thence the name קנני (_Kanani_) was very fairly
expressed, according to the forms and terminations of the
Greek, by Κανανιτης, (_Kananites_.) The Hebrew root is a verb
which means “to be _zealous_,” and the name derived from it of
course means, “one who is _zealous_,” of which the just Greek
translation is the word Ζηλωτης, (_Zelotes_,) the very name by
which Luke represents it in this instance. (Luke vi. 15; Acts
i. 13.) One of these names is, in short, a mere translation of
the other,――nor is there any way of evading this construction,
except by supposing that Luke was mistaken in supposing that
Simon was called “the Zealot,” being deceived by the resemblance
of the name “_Cananites_” to the Hebrew name of that sect. But
no believer in the inspiration of the gospel can allow this
supposition. Equally unfounded, and inconsistent with Luke’s
translation, is the notion that the name Cananite is derived
from Cana the village of Galilee, famous as the scene of
Christ’s first miracle.

The account given in the Life of Matthew shows the character of
this sect, as it existed in the last days of the Jewish state.
Josephus describes them very fully in his history of the Jewish
War, (iv. 3.) Simon probably received this name, however, not
from any connection with a sect which arose long after the death
of Christ, but from something in his own character which showed
a great _zeal_ for the cause which he had espoused.

HIS HISTORY.

No very direct statement as to his parentage is made in the New Testament; but one or two incidental allusions to some circumstances connected with it, afford ground for a reasonable conclusion on this point. In the enumeration which Matthew and Mark give of the four brothers of Jesus, in the discourse of the offended citizens of Nazareth, Simon is mentioned along with James, Juda and Joses. It is worthy of notice, also, that on all the apostolic lists, Simon the apostle is mentioned between the brothers James and Juda; an arrangement that can not be accounted for, except by supposing that he was also the brother of James. The reason why Juda is distinctly specified as the brother of James, while Simon is mentioned without reference to any such relationship, is, doubtless, that the latter was so well known by the appellation of the Zealot, that there was no need of specifying his relations, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. These two circumstances, incidentally mentioned, may be considered as justifying the supposition, that Simon Zelotes was the same person as Simon the brother of Jesus. In this manner, all the old writers have understood the connection; and though such use is no authority, it is worth mentioning that the monkish chroniclers always consider Simon Zelotes as the brother of Juda; and they associate these two, as wandering together in eastern countries, to preach the gospel in Persia and Mesopotamia. Others carry him into much more improbable wanderings. Egypt and Northern Africa, and even Britain, are mentioned as the scenes of his apostolic labors, in the ingenious narratives of those who undertook to supply almost every one of the nations of the eastern continent with an apostolic patron saint. All this is very poor consolation for the general dearth of facts in relation to this apostle; and the searcher for historical truth will not be so well satisfied with the tedious tales of monkish romance, as with the decided and unquestionable assurance, that the whole history of this apostle, from beginning to end, is perfectly unknown, and that not one action of his life has been preserved from the darkness of an utterly impenetrable oblivion.

JUDA.

HIS NAME.