Chú giải Kinh Thánh

After the inscription and salutation (Jam 1:1) Christians are taught how to conduct themselves when under the cross. Several graces and duties are recommended; and those who endure their trials and afflictions as the apostle here directs are pronounced blessed and are assured of a glorious reward, Jam 1:2-12. But those sins which bring sufferings, or the weakness and faults men are chargeable with under them, are by no means to be imputed to God, who cannot be the author of sin, but is the author of all good, Jam 1:13-18. All passion, and rash anger, and vile affections, ought to be suppressed. The word of God should be made our chief study: and what we hear and know of it we must take care to practise, otherwise our religion will prove but a vain thing. To this is added an account wherein pure religion consists, Jam 1:19-27.

INTRODUCTION

THIS is called by EUSEBIUS ([Ecclesiastical History, 2.23], about the year 330 A.D.) the first of the Catholic Epistles, that is, the Epistles intended for general circulation, as distinguished from Paul's Epistles, which were addressed to particular churches or individuals. In the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament extant, they stand before the Epistles of Paul. Of them, two only are mentioned by EUSEBIUS as universally acknowledged (Homologoumena), namely, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First Epistle of John. All, however, are found in every existing manuscript of the whole New Testament.

It is not to be wondered at that Epistles not addressed to particular churches (and particularly one like that of James, addressed to the Israelite believers scattered abroad) should be for a time less known. The first mention of James' Epistle by name occurs early in the third century, in ORIGEN [Commentary on John 1:19, 4.306], who was born about 185, and died A.D. 254. CLEMENT OF ROME ([First Epistle to the Corinthians, 10]; compare

Jas 2:21, 23;

[First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11]; compare

Jas 2:25; Heb 11:31)

quotes it. So also HERMAS [Shepherd] quotes

Jas 4:7.

IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 4.16.2] is thought to refer to

Jas 2:23.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA commented on it, according to CASSIODORUS. EPHREM THE SYRIAN [Against the Greeks, 3.51] quotes

Jas 5:1.

An especially strong proof of its authenticity is afforded by its forming part of the old Syriac version, which contains no other of the disputed books (Antilegomena, [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25]), except the Epistle to the Hebrews. None of the Latin fathers before the fourth century quote it; but soon after the Council of Nicea it was admitted as canonical both by the East and West churches, and specified as such in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (397 A.D.). This is just what we might expect; a writing known only partially at first, when subsequently it obtained a wider circulation, and the proofs were better known of its having been recognized in apostolic churches, having in them men endowed with the discernment of spirits, which qualified them for discriminating between inspired and uninspired writings, was universally accepted. Though doubted for a time, at last the disputed books (James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation) were universally and undoubtingly accepted, so that no argument for the Old Testament Apocrypha can be drawn from their case: as to it the Jewish Church had no doubt; it was known not to be inspired.

LUTHER'S objection to it ("an Epistle of straw, and destitute of an evangelic character") was due to his mistaken idea that it

(Jas 2:14-26)

opposes the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, taught by Paul. But the two apostles, while looking at justification from distinct standpoints, perfectly harmonize and mutually complement the definitions of one another. Faith precedes love and the works of love; but without them it is dead. Paul regards faith in the justification of the sinner before God; James, in the justification of the believer evidently before men. The error which James meets was the Jewish notion that their possession and knowledge of the law of God would justify them, even though they disobeyed it (compare

Jas 1:22 with Ro 2:17-25).

Jas 1:3; 4:1, 12

seem plainly to allude to

Ro 5:3; 6:13; 7:23; 14:4.

Also the tenor of

Jas 2:14-26

on "justification," seems to allude to Paul's teaching, so as to correct false Jewish notions of a different kind from those which he combatted, though not unnoticed by him also

(Ro 2:17,

&c.).

Paul

(Ga 2:9)

arranges the names "James, Cephas, John," in the order in which their Epistles stand. James who wrote this Epistle (according to most ancient writers) is called

(Ga 1:19),

"the Lord's brother." He was son of Alpheus or Cleopas

(Lu 24:13-18)

and Mary, sister of the Virgin Mary. Compare

Mr 15:40 with Joh 19:25,

which seems to identify the mother of James the Less with the wife of Cleopas, not with the Virgin Mary, Cleopas' wife's sister. Cleopas is the Hebrew, Alpheus the Greek mode of writing the same name. Many, however, as HEGESIPPUS [EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 23.1], distinguish the Lord's brother from the son of Alpheus. But the Gospel according to the Hebrews, quoted by JEROME, represents James, the Lord's brother, as present at the institution of the Eucharist, and therefore identical with the apostle James. So the Apocryphal Gospel of James. In Acts, James who is put foremost in Jerusalem after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, is not distinguished from James, the son of Alpheus. He is not mentioned as one of the Lord's brethren in

Ac 1:14;

but as one of the "apostles"

(Ga 1:19).

He is called "the Less" (literally, "the little,"

Mr 15:40),

to distinguish him from James, the son of Zebedee. ALFORD considers James, the brother of the Lord, the author of the Epistle, to have been the eldest of the sons of Joseph and Mary, after Jesus (compare

Mt 13:55),

and that James the son of Alpheus is distinguished from him by the latter being called "the Less," (that is, junior). His arguments against the Lord's brother, the bishop of Jerusalem, being the apostle, are: (1) The Lord's brethren did not believe on Jesus at a time when the apostles had been already called

(Joh 7:3, 5),

therefore none of the Lord's brethren could be among the apostles (but it does not follow from

Joh 7:3

that no one of them believed). (2) The apostles' commission was to preach the Gospel everywhere, not to be bishops in a particular locality (but it is unlikely that one not an apostle should be bishop of Jerusalem, to whom even apostles yield deference,

Ac 15:13, 19; Ga 1:19; 2:9, 12.

The Saviour's last command to the apostles collectively to preach the Gospel everywhere, is not inconsistent with each having a particular sphere of labor in which he should be a missionary bishop, as Peter is said to have been at Antioch).

He was surnamed "the Just." It needed peculiar wisdom so to preach the Gospel as not to disparage the law. As bishop of Jerusalem writing to the twelve tribes, he sets forth the Gospel in its aspect of relation to the law, which the Jews so reverenced. As Paul's Epistles are a commentary on the doctrines flowing from the death and resurrection of Christ, so James's Epistle has a close connection with His teaching during His life on earth, especially His Sermon on the Mount. In both, the law is represented as fulfilled in love: the very language is palpably similar (compare

Jas 1:2 with Mt 5:12;

Jas 1:4 with Mt 5:48;

Jas 1:5; 5:15 with Mt 7:7-11;

Jas 2:13 with Mt 5:7; 6:14, 15;

Jas 2:10 with Mt 5:19;

Jas 4:4 with Mt 6:24;

Jas 4:11 with Mt 7:1, 2;

Jas 5:2 with Mt 6:19).

The whole spirit of this Epistle breathes the same Gospel-righteousness which the Sermon on the Mount inculcates as the highest realization of the law. James's own character as "the Just," or legally righteous, disposed him to this coincidence (compare

Jas 1:20; 2:10; 3:18 with Mt 5:20).

It also fitted him for presiding over a Church still zealous for the law

(Ac 21:18-24; Ga 2:12).

If any could win the Jews to the Gospel, he was most likely who presented a pattern of Old Testament righteousness, combined with evangelical faith (compare also

Jas 2:8 with Mt 5:44, 48).

Practice, not profession, is the test of obedience (compare

Jas 2:17; 4:17 with Mt 7:2-23).

Sins of the tongue, however lightly regarded by the world, are an offense against the law of love (compare

Jas 1:26; 3:2-18 with Mt 5:22;

also any swearing,

Jas 5:12;

compare

Mt 5:33-37).

The absence of the apostolic benediction in this Epistle is probably due to its being addressed, not merely to the believing, but also indirectly to unbelieving, Israelites. To the former he commends humility, patience, and prayer; to the latter he addresses awful warnings

(Jas 5:7-11; 4:9; 5:1-6).

James was martyred at the Passover. This Epistle was probably written just before it. The destruction of Jerusalem foretold in it

(Jas 5:1,

&c.), ensued a year after his martyrdom, A.D. 69. HEGESIPPUS (quoted in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 2.23]) narrates that he was set on a pinnacle of the temple by the scribes and Pharisees, who begged him to restrain the people who were in large numbers embracing Christianity. "Tell us," said they in the presence of the people gathered at the feast, "which is the door of Jesus?" James replied with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He sitteth at the right hand of power, and will come again on the clouds of heaven." Many thereupon cried, Hosanna to the Son of David. But James was cast down headlong by the Pharisees; and praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," he was stoned and beaten to death with a fuller's club. The Jews, we know from Acts, were exasperated at Paul's rescue from their hands, and therefore determined to wreak their vengeance on James. The publication of his Epistle to the dispersed Israelites, to whom it was probably carried by those who came up to the periodical feasts, made him obnoxious to them, especially to the higher classes, because it foretold the woes soon about to fall on them and their country. Their taunting question, "Which is the door of Jesus?" (that is, by what door will He come when He returns?), alludes to his prophecy, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh . . . behold the Judge standeth before the door"

(Jas 5:8, 9).

Heb 13:7

probably refers to the martyrdom of James, who had been so long bishop over the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, "Remember them which have (rather, 'had') the rule (spiritually) over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

His inspiration as an apostle is expressly referred to in

Ac 15:19, 28,

"My sentence is," &c.: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," &c. His episcopal authority is implied in the deference paid to him by Peter and Paul

(Ac 12:17; 21:18; Ga 1:19; 2:9).

The Lord had appeared specially to him after the resurrection

(1Co 15:7).

Peter in his First Epistle (universally from the first received as canonical) tacitly confirms the inspiration of James's Epistle, by incorporating with his own inspired writings no less than ten passages from James. The "apostle of the circumcision," Peter, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have much in common. Compare

Jas 1:1 with 1Pe 1:1;

Jas 1:2 with 1Pe 1:6; 4:12, 13;

Jas 1:11 with 1Pe 1:24;

Jas 1:18 with 1Pe 1:3;

Jas 2:7 with 1Pe 4:14;

Jas 3:13 with 1Pe 2:12;

Jas 4:1 with 1Pe 2:11;

Jas 4:6 with 1Pe 5:5, 6;

Jas 4:7 with 1Pe 5:6, 9;

Jas 4:10 with 1Pe 5:6;

Jas 5:20 with 1Pe 4:6.

Its being written in the purest Greek shows it was intended not only for the Jews at Jerusalem, but also for the Hellenistic, that is, Greek-speaking, Jews.

The style is close, curt, and sententious, gnome following after gnome. A Hebraic character pervades the Epistle, as appears in the occasional poetic parallelisms

(Jas 3:1-12).

Compare "assembly": Greek, "synagogue,"

Jas 2:2,

Margin. The images are analogical arguments, combining at once logic and poetry. Eloquence and persuasiveness are prominent characteristics.

The similarity to Matthew, the most Hebrew of the Gospels, is just what we might expect from the bishop of Jerusalem writing to Israelites. In it the higher spirit of Christianity is seen putting the Jewish law in its proper place. The law is enforced in its everlasting spirit, not in the letter for which the Jews were so zealous. The doctrines of grace, the distinguishing features of Paul's teaching to the Hellenists and Gentiles, are less prominent as being already taught by that apostle. James complements Paul's teaching, and shows to the Jewish Christians who still kept the legal ordinances down to the fall of Jerusalem, the spiritual principle of the law, namely, love manifested in obedience. To sketch "the perfect man" continuing in the Gospel law of liberty, is his theme.

The General Epistle Of James

Section 1. The Question: Who Was the Author of this Epistle?

There have been more difficult questions raised in regard to the Epistle of James than perhaps any other portion of the New Testament. Those questions it is of importance to examine as fully as is consistent with the design of these notes; that is, so far as to enable a candid inquirer to see what is the real difficulty in the case, and what is, so far as can be ascertained, the truth.

The first question is, Who was the author? It has been attributed to one of three persons: to James "the elder," the son of Zebedee, and brother of John; to James "the less," son of Alphaeus or Cleophas; and to a James of whom nothing more is known. Some have supposed, also, that the James who is mentioned as the "Lord's brother," Galatians 1:19, was a different person from James, the son of Alphaeus.

There are no methods of determining this point from the Epistle itself. All that can be established from the Epistle is:

(1) that the name of the author was James, James 1:1

(2) that he professed to be a "servant of God," James 1:1

(3) that he had been probably a Jew, and sustained such a relation to those to whom he wrote, as to make it proper for him to address them with authority; and,

(4) that he was a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, James 2:1; James 5:8

There are two persons, if not three, of the name of James, mentioned in the New Testament. The one is James, the son of Zebedee, Matthew 4:21; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13, et al. He was the brother of John, and is usually mentioned in connection with him; Matthew 4:21; Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; Mark 13:3, et al. The name of their mother was Salome. Compare Matthew 27:56, with Mark 15:40. He was put to death by Herod Agrippa, about 41 a.d. Acts 12:2. He was called the major, or the elder - to distinguish him from the other James, the younger, or the less, Mark 15:40; called also, in ancient history, James the Just.

The other James was a son of Alphaeus or Cleophas; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Acts 1:13; Luke 24:18. That Alphaeus and Cleophas was the same person is evident from the fact that both the words are derived from the Hebrew הלפי h-l-p-y. The name of the mother of this James was Mary, Mark 15:40; and James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, are mentioned as brethren; Matthew 13:55. There is also a James mentioned in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; and Galatians 1:19, as a "brother of our Lord." On the meaning of this expression, see the notes at Galatians 1:19

It has been a question which has been agitated from the earliest times, whether the James who is mentioned as the son of Alphaeus, and the James who is mentioned as the "Lord's brother," were the same or different persons. It is not necessary for the purposes of these notes to go into an examination of this question. Those who are disposed to see it pursued, may consult Hug's Introduction, Section 158, and the works there referred to; Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, vol. ii. p. 2, following, Edin. Ed.; and Michaelis' Introduction, vol. iv. 271, following. The question, says Neander, is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history. Hug supposes that James the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of the Lord, were the same. Neander supposes that the James mentioned by the title of the "Lord's brother" was a son of Joseph, either by a former marriage, or by Mary, and consequently a "brother" in the stricter sense.

It is remarked by Michaelis, that James may have been called "the Lord's brother," or mentioned as one of his brethren, in one of the following senses:

(1) That the persons accounted as the "brethren of the Lord" (Matthew 13:55, et al.) were the sons of Joseph, not by Mary the mother of Jesus, but by a former wife. This, says he, was the most ancient opinion, and there is in it nothing improbable. If so, they were older than Jesus.

(2) it may mean that they were the sons of Joseph by Mary, the mother of Jesus. Compare the notes at Matthew 13:55. If so, James was an own brother of Jesus, but younger than he. There is nothing in this opinion inconsistent with any statement in the Bible; for the notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not founded on the authority of the Scriptures. If either of these suppositions were true, however, and James and Judas, the authors of the Epistles which bear their names, were literally the brothers of Christ, it would follow that they were not apostles; for the elder apostle James was the son of Zebedee, and James the younger was the son of Alphaeus.

(3) a third opinion in relation to James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, is, that they were the sons of Joseph by the widow of a brother who had died without children, and to whom, therefore, Joseph, by the Mosaic laws, was obliged to raise up issue. This opinion, however, is entirely unsupported, and is wholly improbable, because:

(a) the law which obliged the Jews to take their brothers" widows applied only to those who were single (Michaelis); and,

(b) if this had been an instance of that kind, all the requirement of the law in the case would have been satisfied when one heir was born.

(4) it might be maintained that, according to the preceding opinion, the brother of Joseph was Alphaeus, and then they would be reckoned as his sons; and in this case, the James and Judas who are called the brothers of Jesus, would have been the same as the apostles of that name. But, in that case, Alphaeus would not have been the same as Cleopas, for Cleopas had a wife - the sister of Joseph's wife.

(5) a fifth opinion, and one which was advanced by Jerome, and which has been extensively maintained, is, that the persons referred to were called "brethren" of the Lord Jesus only in a somewhat lax sense, as denoting his near kinsmen. See the notes at Galatians 1:19. According to this, they would have been cousins of the Lord Jesus, and the relationship was of this kind: James and Judas, sons of Alphaeus, were the apostles, and consequently Alphaeus was the father of Simon and Joses. Further, Alphaeus is the same as Cleopas, who married Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus John 19:25, and, consequently, the sons of Cleopas were cousins of the Saviour.

Which of these opinions is the correct one, it is impossible now to determine. The latter is the common opinion, and perhaps, on the whole, best sustained; and if so, then there were but two Jameses referred to, both apostles, and the one who wrote this Epistle was a cousin of the Lord Jesus. Neander, however, supposes that there were two Jameses besides James the brother of John, the son of Zebedee, and that the one who wrote this Epistle was not the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, but was, in the stricter sense, the "brother" of our Lord, and was trained up with him. History of the Planting of Christianity, ii., p. 3, following.

It is a circumstance of some importance, in showing that there was but one James besides James the brother of John, and that this was the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, that after the death of the elder James Act 12:1, no mention is made of more than one of that name. If there had been, it is hardly possible, says Hug, that there should not have been some allusion to him. This, however, is not conclusive; for there is no mention of Simon, or Bartholomew, or Thomas after that time.

There is but one serious objection, perhaps, to this theory, which is, that it is said John 7:5 that "his brethren did not believe on him." It is possible, however, that the word "brethren" in that place may not have included all his kinsmen, but may have had particular reference to the larger portion of them John 7:3, who were not believers, though it might have been that some of them were believers.

On the whole, it seems probable that the James who was the author of this Epistle was one of the apostles of that name, the son of Alphaeus, and that he was a cousin of our Lord. Entire certainty on that point, however, cannot he hoped for.

If the author of this Epistle was a different person from the one who resided at Jerusalem, and who is often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, then nothing more is known of him. That James was evidently an apostle Galatians 1:19, and perhaps, from his relationship to the Lord Jesus, would have a special influence and authority there.

Of this James, little more is certainly known than what is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Hegesippus, as quoted by Neander, says, that from childhood he led the life of a Nazarene. He is described by Josephus (Archaeol. xx. 9,) as well as by Hegesippus and Eusebius, as a man eminent for his integrity of life, and as well meriting the appellation or surname which he bore among the Jews, of צדיק tsadiyq, δίκαιος dikaios, "the Just." He is mentioned as one who set himself against the corruptions of the age, and who was thence termed the bulwark of the people - צפל צם ̀opel ̀am - περιοχη τοῦ λαοῦ periochē tou laou. His manner of life is represented as strict and holy, and such as to command in an eminent degree the confidence of his countrymen, the Jews. Hegesippus says that he frequently prostrated himself on his knees in the Temple, calling on God to forgive the sins of his people, praying that the divine judgments on the unbelievers might be averted, and that they might be led to repentance and faith, and thus to a participation of the kingdom of the glorified Messiah. Neander, as quoted before, p. 10.

In the New Testament, James appears as a prominent and leading man in the church at Jerusalem. In later times he is mentioned by the ecclesiastical writers as "Bishop of Jerusalem;" but this title is not given to him in the New Testament, nor is there any reason to suppose that he filled the office which is now usually denoted by the word bishop. He appears, however, from some cause, to have had his home permanently in Jerusalem, and, for a considerable portion of his life, to have been the only apostle residing there. As such, as well as from his near relationship to the Lord Jesus, and his own personal worth, he was entitled to, and received, marked respect. His prominence, and the respect which was shown to him at Jerusalem, appear in the following circumstances:

(1) In the council that was held respecting the rules that were to be imposed on the converts from the Gentiles, and the manner in which they were to be regarded and treated Acts 15, after the other apostles had fully delivered their sentiments, the views of James were expressed, and his counsel was followed. Acts 15:13-29

(2) when Peter was released from prison, in answer to the prayers of the assembled church, he directed those whom he first saw to "go and show these things to James, and to the brethren." Acts 12:17

(3) when Paul visited Jerusalem after his conversion, James is twice mentioned by him as occupying a prominent position there. First, Paul says that when he went there on the first occasion, he saw none of the apostles but Peter, and "James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:18-19. He is here mentioned as one of the apostles, and as sustaining a near relation to the Lord Jesus. On the second occasion, when Paul went up there 14 years after, he is mentioned, in enumerating those who gave to him the right hand of fellowship, as one of the "pillars" of the church; and among those who recognized him as an apostle, he is mentioned first. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." Galatians 2:9

(4) when Paul went up to Jerusalem after his visit to Asia Minor and to Greece, the whole matter pertaining to his visit was laid before James, and his counsel was followed by Paul. Acts 21:18-24

The leading points in the character of James seem to have been these:

(1) Incorruptible integrity; integrity such as to secure the confidence of all men, and to deserve the appellation of "the Just."

(2) an exalted regard for the rites and ceremonies of the ancient religion, and a desire that they should be respected everywhere and honored. He was more slow in coming to the conclusion that they were to be superseded by Christianity than Paul or Peter was (compare Acts 21:18; Galatians 2:12), though he admitted that they were not to be imposed on the Gentile converts as absolutely binding. Acts 15:19-21, Acts 15:24-29. Repeated intimations of his great respect for the laws of Moses are found in the Epistle before us, thus furnishing an internal proof of its genuineness. If he was educated as a Nazarene, and if he always resided with the Jews, in the very vicinity of the Temple, this is not difficult to be accounted for, and this might be expected to tinge his writings.

(3) the point from which he contemplated religion particularly was, conformity to the law. He looked at it as it was intended, to regulate the life, and to produce holiness of deportment, in opposition to all lax views of morals and low conceptions of holiness. He lived in a corrupt age, and among corrupt people; among those who sought to be justified before God by the mere fact that they were Jews, that they had the true religion, and that they were the chosen people of God, and who, in consequence, were lax in their morals, and comparatively regardless of the obligations to personal holiness. He therefore contemplated religion, not so much in respect to the question how man may be justified, as to the question to what kind of life it will lead us; and his great object was to show that personal holiness is necessary to salvation. Paul, on the other hand, was led to contemplate it mainly with reference to another question - how man may be justified; and it became necessary for him to show that men cannot be justified by their own works, but that it must be by faith in the Redeemer. The error which Paul particularly combats, is an error on the subject of justification; the error which James particularly opposes, is a practical error on the influence of religion on the life. It was because religion was contemplated by these two writers from these different points of view, and not from any real contradiction, that the apparent discrepancy arose between the Epistle of James and the writings of Paul. The peculiarity in the character and circumstances of James will account for the views which he took of religion; and, keeping this in mind, it will be easy to show that there is no real contradiction between these writers. It was of great importance to guard against each of the errors referred to; and the views expressed by both of the apostles are necessary to understand the nature and to see the full developement of religion.

How long James 54ed, and when and how he died, is not certainly known. It is agreed by all that he spent his last days in Jerusalem, and that he probably died there. On the subject of his death there is a remarkable passage in Josephus, which, though its genuineness has been disputed, is worth transcribing, as, if genuine, it shows the respect in which James was held, and contains an interesting account of his death. It is as follows: "The emperor (Roman) being informed of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be prefect of Judea. But the younger Aranus, who, as we said before, was made high priest, was haughty in his behavior, and was very ambitious. And, moreover, he was 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 fit opportunity, because Festus was dead, and Albinus was yet on the road, calls a council.

And, bringing before them James, the brother of him who is called Christ, and some others, he accused them as transgressors of the laws, and had them stoned to death. But the most moderate men of the city, who were also reckoned most skillful in the laws, were offended at this proceeding. They therefore sent privately to the king (Agrippa the younger), entreating him to send orders to Ananus no more to attempt any such things." - Ant., B. xx. A long account of the manner of his death, by Hegesippus, is preserved in Eusebius, going much more into detail, and evidently introducing much that is fabulous. The amount of all that can now be known in regard to his decease would seem to be, that he was put to death by violence in Jerusalem, a short time before the destruction of the Temple. From the well-known character of the Jews, this account is by no means improbable. On the subject of his life and death, the reader may find all that is known in Lardner's Works, vol. vi. pp. 162-195; Bacon's Lives of the Apostles, pp. 411-433; and Neander, History of the Planting of the Christian Church, ii., pp. 1-23, Edin. Ed.

The belief that it was this James, the son of Alphaeus, who resided so long at Jerusalem, who was the author of this Epistle, has been the common, though not the unanimous opinion of the Christian church, and seems to be supported by satisfactory arguments. It must evidently have been written either by him or by James the elder, the son of Zebedee, or by some other James, the supposed literal brother of our Lord.

In regard to these opinions, we may observe:

I. That the supposition that it was written by some third one of that name, "wholly unknown to fame," is mere hypothesis. It has no evidence whatever in its support.

II. There are strong reasons for supposing that it was not written by James the elder, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John. It has been indeed ascribed to him. In the old Syriac version, in the earlier editions, it is expressly attributed to him. But against this opinion the following objections may be urged, which seem to be conclusive.

(1) James the elder was beheaded about the year 43 or 44 a.d., and if this Epistle was written by him, it is the oldest of the writings of the New Testament. It is possible, indeed, that the Epistle may have been written at as early a period as that, but the considerations which remain to be stated, will show that this Epistle has sufficient internal marks to prove that it was of later origin.

(2) before the death of James the elder, the preaching of the gospel was chiefly confined within the limits of Palestine; but this Epistle was written to Christians "of the dispersion," that is, to those who resided out of Palestine. It is hardly credible that in so short a time after the ascension of our Lord, there were so many Christians scattered abroad as to make it probable that a letter would be sent to them.

(3) this Epistle is occupied very much with a consideration of a false and perverted view of the doctrine of justification by faith. It is evident that false views on that subject prevailed, and that a considerable corruption of morals was the consequence. But this supposes that the doctrine of justification by faith had been extensively preached; consequently that considerable time had elapsed from the time when the doctrine had been first promulgated. The perversion of a doctrine, so as to produce injurious effects, seldom occurs until some time after the doctrine was first preached, and it can hardly be supposed that this would have occurred before the death of James, the son of Zebedee. See these reasons stated more at length in Benson.

III. There are strong probabilities, from the Epistle itself, to show that it was written by James the Less.

(1) his position at Jerusalem, and his eminence among the apostles, as well as his established character, made it proper that he should address such an epistle to those who were scattered abroad. There was no one among the apostles who would command greater respect from those abroad who were of Jewish origin than James. If he had his residence at Jerusalem; if he was in any manner regarded as the head of the church there; if he sustained a near relation to the Lord Jesus; and if his character was such as has been commonly represented, there was no one among the apostles whose opinions would be treated with greater respect, or who would be considered as having a clearer right to address those who were scattered abroad.

(2) the character of the Epistle accords with the well-known character of James the Less. His strong regard for the law; his zeal for incorruptible integrity; his opposition to lax notions of morals; his opposition to all reliance on faith that was not productive of good works, all appear in this Epistle. The necessity of conformity to the law of God, and of a holy life, is everywhere apparent, and the views expressed in the Epistle agree with all that is stated of the early education and the established character of James. While there is no real contradiction between this Epistle and the writings of Paul, yet it is much easier to show that this is a production of James than it would be to prove that it was written by Paul. Compare Hug, Introduction, Section 159.

Section 2. To Whom Was the Epistle Written?

The Epistle purports to have been written to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad" - or the "twelve tribes of the dispersion" - ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ en tē diaspora, James 1:1. See the 1 Peter 1:1 note, and the James 1:1 note. No mention of the place where they resided is made; nor can it be determined to what portion of the world it was first sent, or whether more than one copy was sent. All that can be conclusively determined in regard to the persons to whom it was addressed, is:

(1) that they were of Jewish descent - as is implied in the phrase "to the twelve tribes" James 1:1, and as is manifest in all the reasonings of the Epistle; and,

(2) that they were Christian converts, James 2:1.

But by whose labors they were converted, is wholly unknown. The Jewish people who were "scattered abroad" had two central points of union, the dispersion in the East, of which Babylon was the head, and the dispersion in the West, of which Alexandria was the head, Hug. Section 156. Peter wrote his Epistles to the latter 1 Peter 1:1, though he was at Babylon when he wrote them 1 Peter 5:13, and it would seem probable that this Epistle was addressed to the former. Beza supposed that this Epistle was sent to the believing Jews, dispersed all over the world; Grotius, that it was written to all the Jews living out of Judea; Lardner, that it was written to all Jews, descendants of Jacob, of every denomination, in Judea, and out of it. It seems plain, however, from the Epistle itself, that it was not addressed to the Jews as such, or without respect to their being already Christians, for:

(a) if it had been, it is hardly conceivable that there should have been no arguments to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and no extended statements of the nature of the Christian system; and,

(b) it bears on the face of it evidence of having been addressed to those who were regarded as Christians; James 2:1; James 5:7, James 5:11, James 5:14.

It may be difficult to account for the fact, on any principles, that there are no more definite allusions to the nature of the Christian doctrines in the Epistle, but it is morally certain that if it had been written to Jews as such, by a Christian apostle, there would have been a more formal defense and statement of the Christian religion. Compare the arguments of the apostles with the Jews in the Acts , passim. I regard the Epistle, therefore, as having been sent to those who were of Jewish origin, but who had embraced the Christian faith by one who had been himself a Jew, and who, though now a Christian apostle, retained much of his early habits of thinking and reasoning in addressing his own countrymen.

Section 3. Where and When Was the Epistle Written?

There are no certain indications by which it can be determined where this Epistle was written, but if the considerations above suggested are well founded, there can be little doubt that it was at Jerusalem. There are indeed certain internal marks, as Hug has observed (Introduction, Section 155), pertaining to the country with which the writer was familiar, and to certain features of natural scenery incidentally alluded to in the Epistle. Thus, his native land was situated not far from the sea James 1:6; James 3:4; it was blessed with valuable productions, as figs, oil, and wine James 3:12; there were springs of saline and fresh water with which he was familiar James 3:11; the land was much exposed to drought, and there were frequently reasons to apprehend famine from the want of rain James 5:17, James 5:18 there were sad devastations produced, and to be dreaded, from a consuming, burning wind James 1:11; and it was a land in which the phenomena known as "early and latter rains" were familiarly understood; James 5:7. All these allusions apply well to Palestine, and were such as would be employed by one who resided in that country, and they may be regarded as an incidental proof that the Epistle was written in that land,

There is no way of determining with certainty when the Epistle was written. Hug supposes that it was after the Epistle to the Hebrews, and not before the beginning of the 10th year of Nero, nor after the accession of Albinus; i. e., the close of the same year. Mill and Fabricius suppose it was before the destruction of Jerusalem, and about a year and a half before the death of James. Lardner supposes that James was put to death about the year 62 a.d., and that this Epistle was written about a year before. He supposes also that his death was hastened by the strong language of reprehension employed in the Epistle. It is probable that the year in which it was written was not far from 58 or 60 a.d., some 10 or 12 years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Section 4. The Canonical Authority of the Epistle

On the question generally respecting the canonical authority of the disputed Epistles, see the Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Section 2. The particular proof of the canonical authority of this Epistle is contained in the evidence that it was written by one of the apostles. If it was written, as suggested above (Section 1), by James the Less, or if it be supposed that it was written by James the elder, both of whom were apostles, its canonical authority will be admitted. As there is no evidence that it was written by any other James, the point seems to be clear.

But there are additional considerations, derived from its reception in the church, which may furnish some degree of confirmation of its authority. These are:

(a) It was included in the old Syriac version, the Peshita, made either in the first century or in the early part of the second, thus showing that it was recognized in the country to which it was probably sent;

(b) Ephrem the Syrian, in his Greek works, made use of it in many places, and attributed it to James, the brother of our Lord (Hug);

(c) It is quoted as of authority by several of the Fathers; by Clement of Rome, who does not indeed mention the name of the writer, but quotes the words of the Epistle James 3:13; James 4:6, James 4:11; James 2:21, James 2:23; by Hermas; and by Jerome. See Lardner, vol. vi. pp. 195-199, and Hug, Section 161.

Section 5. The Evidence that the Writer Was Acquainted with the Writings of Paul; the Alleged Contradiction between Them; and the Question How They Can Be Reconciled

It has been frequently supposed, and sometimes affirmed, that this Epistle is directly contradictory to Paul on the great doctrine of justification, and that it was written to counteract the tendency of his writings on that subject. Thus Hug strangely says, "In this Epistle, Paul is (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and opinions." Section 157. It is of importance, therefore, to inquire into the foundation of this charge, for if it be so, it is clear that either this Epistle or those of Paul would not be entitled to a place in the sacred canon. In order to this investigation, it is necessary to inquire to what extent the author was acquainted with the writings of Paul, and then to ask whether the statements of James are susceptible of any explanation which will reconcile them with those of Paul.

(1) there is undoubted evidence that the author was acquainted with the writings of Paul. This evidence is found in the similarity of the expressions occurring in the Epistles of Paul and James; a similarity such as would occur not merely from the fact that two men were writing on the same subject, but such as occurs only where one is acquainted with the writings of the other. Between two persons writing on the same subject, and resting their opinions on the same general reasons, there might be indeed a general resemblance, and possibly there might be expressions used which would be precisely the same. But it might happen that the resemblance would be so minute and particular, and on points where there could be naturally no such similarity, as to demonstrate that one of the writers was familiar with the productions of the other. For example, a man writing on a religious subject, if he had never heard of the Bible, might use expressions coincident with some that are found there; but it is clear also that he might in so many cases use the same expressions which occur there, and on points where the statements in the Bible are so peculiar, as to show conclusively that he was familiar with that book. So also a man might show that he was familiar with the Rambler or the Spectator, with Shakespeare or Milton. Such, it is supposed, are the allusions in the Epistle of James, showing that he was acquainted with the writings of Paul. Among these passages are the following:

James Paul James 1:2 "Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations." Romans 5:3 "We glory in tribulations also." James 1:3 "Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience." Romans 5:3 "Knowing that tribulation worketh patience." James 1:4 "Wanting nothing." 1 Corinthians 1:7 "Ye come behind in no gift." James 1:6 "He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed." Ephesians 4:14 "Tossed to and fro, carried about with every wind of doctrine." James 1:12 "When he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life ..." 2 Timothy 4:8 "There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." James 1:15 "When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Romans 7:7-8 "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." James 1:18 "That we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." Romans 8:23 "Ourselves also which have the first-fruits of the Spirit." James 1:21 "Lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness", etc. Colossians 3:8 "But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth." James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only", etc. Romans 2:13 "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law." James 2:5 "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith", etc. 1 Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise", etc.

Compare also, on this subject, the passage in James 5:14-16, with Romans 3:20 ff; the examples of Abraham and Rahab, referred to in James 2:21, James 2:25, with the reference to Abraham in Romans 4; and James 4:12, with Romans 2:1; Romans 14:4

These passages will show that James had an acquaintance with the writings of Paul, and that he was familiar with his usual method of expressing his thoughts. These allusions are not such as two men would be likely to make who were total strangers to each other's mode of speaking and of writing.

It may be added here, also, that some critics have supposed that there is another kind of evidence that James was acquainted with the writings of Paul, than that which arises from mere similarity of expression, and that he meant to refer to him, with a view to correct the influence of some of his views. Thus, Hug, in the passage already referred to (Section 157), says, "In this Epistle, the apostle Paul is (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and opinions. All that Paul has taught respecting faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here directly contravened." After citing examples from the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle of James, in support of this, Hug adds, "The Epistle was therefore written of set purpose against Paul, against the doctrine that faith procures man justification and the divine favor." The contradiction between James and Paul appeared so palpable to Luther, and the difficulty of reconciling them seemed to him to be so great, that for a long time he rejected the Epistle of James altogether. He subsequently, however, became satisfied that it was a part of the inspired canon of Scripture.

(2) it has been, therefore, an object of much solicitude to know how the views of Paul and James, apparently so contradictory, can be reconciled; and many attempts have been made to do it. Those who wish to pursue this inquiry to greater length than is consistent with the design of these notes, may consult Neander's History of the Planting of the Christian Church, vol. ii., pp. 1-23, 228-239, and Dr. Dwight's Theology, serm. lxviii. The particular consideration of this pertains more appropriately to the exposition of the Epistle (see the remarks at the close of James 3); but a few general principles may be laid down here, which may aid those who are disposed to make the comparison between the two, and which may show that there is no designed, and no real contradiction.

(a) The view which is taken of any object depends much on the point of vision from which it is beheld - the stand-point, as the Germans say; and in order to estimate the truthfulness or value of a description or a picture, it is necessary for us to place ourselves in the same position with him who has given the description, or who has made the picture. Two men, painting or describing a mountain, a valley, a waterfall, or an edifice, might take such different positions in regard to it, that the descriptions which they give would seem to be quite contradictory and irreconcilable, unless this were taken into the account. A landscape, sketched from the top of a high tower or on a level plain; a view of Niagara Falls, taken above or below the falls - on the American or Canada side; a view of St. Paul's Cathedral, taken from one side or another, from the dome or when on the ground, might be very different; and two such views might present features which it would be scarcely possible to reconcile with each other. So it is of moral subjects. Much depends on the point from which they are viewed, and from the bearings and tendencies of the doctrine which is the particular subject of contemplation. The subject of temperance, for example, may be contemplated with reference, on the one hand, to the dangers arising from too lax a view of the matter, or, on the other, to the danger of pressing the principle too far; and in order to know a man's views, and not to do injustice to him, it is proper to understand the particular aspect in which he looked at it, and the particular object which he had in view.

(b) The object of Paul - the "stand-point" from which he viewed the subject of justification - on which point alone it has been supposed that he and James differ - was to show that there is no justification before God, except by faith; that the meritorious cause of justification is the atonement; that good works do not enter into the question of justification as a matter of merit, or as the ground of acceptance; that if it were not for faith in Christ, it would not be possible for man to be justified. The point which he opposes is, that men can be justified by good works, by conformity to the law, by dependence on rites and ceremonies, by birth or blood. The aim of Paul is not to demonstrate that good works are not necessary or desirable in religion, but that they are not the ground of justification. The point of view in which he contemplates man, is before he is converted, and with reference to the question on what ground he can be justified: and he affirms that it is only by faith, and that good works come in for no share in justification, as a ground of merit.

(c) The object of James - the "stand-point" from which he viewed the subject - was, to show that a man cannot have evidence that he is justified, or that his faith is genuine, unless he is characterized by good works, or by holy living. His aim is to show, not that faith is not essential to justification, and not that the real ground of dependence is not the merit of the Saviour, but that conformity to the law of God is indispensable to true religion. The point of view in which he contemplates the subject, is after a man professes to be justified, and with reference to the question whether his faith is genuine; and he affirms that no faith is of value in justification but that which is productive of good works. By his own character, by education, by the habits of his whole life, he was accustomed to look on religion as obedience to the will of God; and everything in his character led him to oppose all that was lax in principle, and loose in tendency, in religion.

The point which he opposed, therefore, was, that mere faith in religion, as a revelation from God; a mere assent to certain doctrines, without a corresponding life, could be a ground of justification before God. This was the prevalent error of his countrymen; and while the Jews held to the belief of divine revelation as a matter of speculative faith, the most lax views of morals prevailed, and they freely indulged in practices entirely inconsistent with true piety, and subversive of all proper views of religion. It was not improper, therefore, as Paul had given prominence to one aspect of the doctrine of justification, showing that a man could not be saved by dependence on the works of the law, but that it must be by the work of Christ, that James should give due prominence to the other form of the doctrine, by showing that the essential and necessary tendency of the true doctrine of justification was to lead to a holy life; and that a man whose life was not conformed to the law of God, could not depend on any mere assent to the truth of religion, or any speculative faith whatever. Both these statements are necessary to a full exposition of the doctrine of justification; both are opposed to dangerous errors; and both, therefore, are essential in order to a full understanding of that important subject.

(d) Both these statements are true:

(1) That of Paul is true, that there can be no justification before God on the ground of our own works, but that the real ground of justification is faith in the great sacrifice made for sin.

(2) that of James is no less true, that there can be no genuine faith which is not productive of good works, and that good works furnish the evidence that we have true religion, and are just before God. A mere faith; a naked assent to dogmas, accompanied with lax views of morals, can furnish no evidence of true piety. It is as true, that where there is not a holy life there is no religion, as it is in cases where there is no faith.

It may be added, therefore, that the Epistle of James occupies an important place in the New Testament, and that it could not be withdrawn without materially marring the proportions of the scheme of religion which is there revealed. Instead, therefore, of being regarded as contradictory to any part of the New Testament, it should rather be deemed indispensable to the concinnity and beauty of the whole.

Keeping in view, therefore, the general design of the Epistle, and the point of view from which James contemplated the subject of religion; the general corruptions of the age in which he lived, in regard to morals; the tendency of the Jews to suppose that mere assent to the truths of religion was enough to save them; the liability which there was to abuse the doctrine of Paul on the subject of justification - it will not be difficult to understand the general drift of this Epistle, or to appreciate its value. A summary of its contents, and a more particular view of its design, will be found in the "Analyses" prefixed to the several chapters.

This chapter seems to comprise two general classes of subjects; the statement in regard to the first of which is complete, but the second is only commenced in this chapter, and is continued in the second. The first is the general subject of temptation and trial James 1:1-15; the second is the nature of true religion: the statement that all true religion has its origin in God, the source of purity and truth, and that it requires us to be docile and meek; to be doers of the word; to bridle the tongue, and to be the friends of the fatherless and the widow, James 1:16-27.

I. The general subject of temptation or trial, James 1:1-15. It is evident that those to whom the Epistle was directed were, at that time, suffering in some form, or that they were called to pass through temptations, and that they needed counsel and support. They were in danger of sinking in despondency; of murmuring and complaining, and of charging God as the author of temptation and of sin. This part of the chapter comprises the following topics:

1. The salutation, James 1:1.

2. The subject of temptations or trials. They were to regard it, not as a subject of sorrow, but of gladness and joy, that they were called to pass through trials; for if borne in a proper manner, they would produce the grace of patience, and this was to be regarded as an object worth being secured, even by much suffering, James 1:2-4.

3. If in their trials they felt that they had lacked the wisdom which they needed to enable them to bear them in a proper manner, they had the privilege of looking to God, and seeking it at his hand. This was a privilege conceded to all, and if it were asked in faith, without any wavering, it would certainly be granted, James 1:5-7.

4. The importance and value of stability, especially in trials; of being firm in principle, and of having one single great aim in life. A man who wavered in his faith would waver in everything, James 1:8.

5. An encouragement to those who, in the trials which they experienced, passed through rapid changes of circumstances. Whatever those changes were, they were to rejoice in them as ordered by the Lord. They were to remember the essential instability of all earthly things. The rich especially, who were most disposed to murmur and complain when their circumstances were changed, were to remember how the burning heat blasts the beauty of the flower, and that in like manner all worldly splendor must fade away, James 1:9-11.

6. Every person is blessed who endures trials in a proper manner, for such an endurance of trial will be connected with a rich reward - the crown of life, James 1:12.

7. In their trials, however, in the allurements to sin which might be set before them; in the temptations to apostatize, or to do anything wrong, which might be connected with their suffering condition, they were to be careful never to charge temptation as such on God. They were never to allow their minds to feel for a moment that he allured them to sin, or placed an inducement of any kind before them to do wrong. Everything of that kind, every disposition to commit sin, originated in their own hearts, and they should never allow themselves to charge it on God, James 1:13-15.

II. The nature of true religion, James 1:16-27.

1. It has its origin in God, the source of every good gift, the Father of lights, who has of his own will begotten us again, that he might raise us to an exalted rank among his creatures. God, therefore, should be regarded not as the author of sin, but as the source of all the good that is in us, James 1:16-18.

2. Religion requires us to be meek and docile; to lay aside all disposition to dictate or prescribe, all irritability against the truth, and all corruption of heart, and to receive meekly the ingrafted word, James 1:19-21.

3. Religion requires us to be doers of the word, and not hearers only, James 1:23-25.

4. Religion requires us to bridle the tongue, to set a special guard on our words, James 1:26.

5. Religion requires us to be the friends of the fatherless and the widow, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, James 1:27.

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 ὁλος, the whole; for the application of which term Ecumenius, in cap. i. Jacobi, gives the following reason: Καθολικαι λεγονται αυται, οἱονει εγκυκλιοι· ου γαρ αφωρισμενως εθνει ἑνι 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 του μικρου, 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, Matthew 13:56, 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 13:55 (note); see also on Matthew 1:25 (note).

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, etc.; 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 honored 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; Plm 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. James 1:18 : Having willed it, he hath begotten us by the word. Romans 5:3, Romans 5:4 : Knowing that affliction worketh out patience; and patience experience. James 1:3 : Knowing that the proving of your faith worketh out patience. Romans 2:13 : That the hearers of the law are not just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. James 1:22 : And be ye doers of the law, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves by false reasoning. 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. James 4:1 : Come they not hence, even from your lusts, which war in your members? 1 Peter 5:8, 1 Peter 5:9 : Your adversary the devil; whom resist, steadfast in the faith. James 4:7 : Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 1 Peter 5:6 : Be humbled under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you. James 4:10 : Be humbled in the presence of God, and he will lift you up. Romans 14:4 : Who art thou that condemnest another man's household servant? James 4:12 : Thou, who art thou that condemnest another? 1 Peter 4:8 : Love covereth a multitude of sins. 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 favor 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 favor 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; James 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.

He addresses the dispersed of the twelve tribes, James 1:1. Shows that they should rejoice under the cross, because of the spiritual good which they may derive from it, especially in the increase and perfecting of their patience, James 1:2-4. They are exhorted to ask wisdom of God, who gives liberally to all, James 1:5. But they must ask in faith, and not with a doubting mind, James 1:6-8. Directions to the rich and the poor, James 1:9-11. The blessedness of the man that endures trials, James 1:12. How men are tempted and drawn away from God, James 1:13-15. God is the Father of lights, and all good proceeds from him, James 1:16-18. Cautions against hasty words and wrong tempers, James 1:19-21. We should be doers of the word, and not hearers merely, lest we resemble those who, beholding their natural face in a glass, when it is removed forget what manner of persons they were, James 1:22-24. We should look into the perfect law of liberty, and continue therein, James 1:25. The nature and properties of pure religion, James 1:26, James 1:27.

INTRODUCTION TO JAMES

This epistle is called "general", because not written to any particular person, as the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are; nor to any particular churches, as the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, &c. but to the believing Jews in general, wherever they were. The author of it is James; and whereas there were two of this name, who were the apostles of Christ; some have thought it was written by one, and some by another: some think it was written by James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, which is favoured by the Syriac version, which to this epistle, and the following, premises these words;

"the three epistles of the three apostles, before whose eyes our Lord transfigured himself, that is, James, and Peter, and John.''

Now, that James, who was present at the transfiguration of Christ, was James the son of Zebedee: but neither the time, nor occasion, nor matter of this epistle, seem to agree with him, for he was put to death by Herod, about the year 44, Acts 12:1, whereas this epistle was written, as some think, about the year 60, or as others, 63; and it seems pretty manifest that it must be written after the Gospel had been spread in the Gentile world, and was received by the Jews, who were scattered abroad in it; and after many hypocrites had crept into the churches, and many false teachers, and vain boasters, and wicked men, had arisen among them: it seems therefore more agreeable to ascribe this epistle to James, the son of Alphaeus, sometimes called the brother of our Lord, and who was present at the assembly at Jerusalem, when the necessity of the Gentiles' circumcision was debated, Acts 15:1 and is the same whom Eusebius (a) calls James the just, and Oblias; and who seems to have resided at Jerusalem, and to have been the bishop, or overseer of the church there; and therefore in character writes this epistle to the Jews, in the several parts of the world: nor need there be any doubt of the authenticity of it. Eusebius indeed says (b), that it had been accounted spurious by some, and that not many of the ancient writers had made mention of it: but he himself says, that it was publicly read in most churches; and certain it is, that some very early writers have respect unto it. Irenaeus (c) manifestly refers to it, and so does Tertullian (d); and it is expressly mentioned by Origen (e) among the canonical books of Scripture. The objections against it are of no weight, which are taken from the seeming disagreement between the Apostle Paul, and the writer of this epistle, concerning the doctrine of justification; and from his calling the law the perfect law of liberty, and insisting so much on the doctrine of works; all which will be seen to be agreeable to the other parts of Scripture, and easily reconciled with them; nor is there anything in it unworthy of an apostle and an inspired writer. The occasion of it seems to be partly the troubles and persecutions which attended the saints for the sake of Christ and the Gospel; and the design of it is to encourage them to patience under them, and to wait and hope for the speedy coming of Christ; and partly the evil practices of some that boasted of their faith and knowledge, though they lived very dissolute lives: and the view of the apostle is to show, that faith, without the fruits of righteousness, is not genuine; and he very largely in it exhorts to several duties very becoming Christians, and inveighs against several vices, which were scandalous to them.

(a) Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. (b) Ib. & l. 3. c. 25. (c) Adv. Haeres. l. 5. c. 1.((d) Adv. Judaeos, c. 2.((e) Homil. 7. in Josuam, fol. 156. E.

INTRODUCTION TO James 1

In this chapter, after the inscription and salutation, the apostle instructs the saints he writes to, how to behave under afflictions, and in every state of life; teaches them not to impute their sins to God, but to themselves; directs them in hearing the word, and cautions against self-deception in religion. The inscription and salutation are in James 1:1 in which the author of the epistle is described by his name and office; and the persons it is written to, by the tribes of Israel they belonged to, and by the condition in which they were scattered about in the world, to whom the apostle wishes all grace. And as they were in an afflicted state, he begins with an exhortation to rejoice in their afflictions; because hereby faith was tried, and that produced patience, and patience being perfect, is the way to be complete, and want nothing, James 1:2, but if any wanted wisdom, how to behave under such exercises, he advises to apply to God for it, from whom it may be expected, since he is the giver of it, and gives it to all, and that liberally, and does not upbraid with the former conduct, James 1:5 but then such should ask in faith, or otherwise it cannot be thought they should receive, and besides would justly deserve the characters of fluctuating and unstable persons, James 1:6. And the exhortations the apostle had given, he observes, suited all sorts of persons, poor and rich; the one who is exalted amidst his poverty, and the other who is mean, and frail, and mortal, amidst all his riches; which is illustrated by the flower of the grass falling off and perishing, James 1:9. And upon the whole, he concludes the blessedness of the man that endures affliction patiently, since a crown of life is promised him, and he will receive it, James 1:12 and from external temptations or afflictions, the apostle proceeds to internal ones, temptations to sin; and denies them to be of God, and imputes them to the lusts of men, and gives a very accurate account of the beginning, progress, and finishing of sin by man; and observes, that to place sin to the account of God, and not man, is a very great error, James 1:13, which he proves from the pure and holy nature of God; and from the good and perfect gifts, which all, and only, come from him; and instances in regeneration, which is of his will, and by his word, and is the beginning and spring of all good in man, James 1:17. And having mentioned the word, as a means of that grace, he gives some rules about hearing it; that it should be heard with eagerness, and received with meekness; and whatsoever is contrary thereunto should be avoided; as a forwardness to be teachers of it: wrath and anger at the doctrines of it, which do not work the righteousness of God; and all impurity and naughtiness of the mind, which must render it inattentive to it; and the rather all this should be regarded, since the word is the ingrafted word, and able to save the souls of men, James 1:19 and particular care should be had, that what is heard is put in practice, or otherwise it will be a self-deception; and such will be like a man that beholds his face in a glass goes away, and forgets what sort of a man he is; whereas, if a man looks into the glass of the Gospel hears the word attentively, remembers what he hears, and continues in it, he finds many blessed advantages in so doing, James 1:22 and then the apostle distinguishes between a vain religion, and a pure one; a vain religion is only a seeming one, and may be known to be so by a man's having no guard upon his tongue; wherefore if he thinks himself religious, he is mistaken and his heart deceived, James 1:26 but pure and undefiled religion, which is so in the sight of God, shows itself in a holy life and conversation in general, and particularly in visiting and assisting widows and orphans in distress, James 1:27.

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.

The Epistle of St. James.

BY

THE REV. E. G. PUNCHARD, D.D.,

Late Fellow of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES.

I. The Writer.—Questions of Identity.—“James, a servant (literally, a slave) of God and the Lord Jesus Christ:” this is all the direct information to be learned from the author concerning himself. The name James was, of course, a favourite with the Jews under the more common form of Jacob, and is familiar to us in studying the books of the New Testament. “We read there of:—

1.James the son of Zebedee.

2.James the son of Alphseus.

3.James “the Lord’s brother.”

4.James the son of Mary.

5.James “the Less” (or, “the Little”).

6.James the brother of Jude.

7.James the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Is it possible for us to decide between so many, or even feel fairly convinced that we can identify one of these as the writer of our Epistle? To reject them all, and ascribe it to another James, of whom no further mention is made, would seem to be the addition of fresh and needless difficulty to a problem already sufficiently obscure. The first claimant in the above list may be dismissed at once, from the fact of his early death. James the Great, as he is called, the brother of John, was executed by Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), a date much too early for this Letter; and no tradition or opinion worthy of consideration has ever attributed it to him.

The next inquiry must be one of much circumspection, beset as it is with thorns of controversy: in fact, the conflict of authorities must seem well nigh hopeless to an ordinary mind. Apart from the main question, many collateral ones have arisen to embitter the dispute, and by no means the last word has been said on either side. If, then, an attempt be here made to arrive at some conclusion, it must confessedly be with muck misgiving, and full admission of the almost equal arguments against our decision.

By comparing St. Paul’s description concerning Numbers 4, 7 (above) in Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9-12, it is thought he must be referring to one and the same man; let that be granted, therefore, to begin with. We may identify Numbers 3, 4 by the knowledge that James the son of Mary had a brother called Joses (Matthew 27:56), and so also had James “the Lord’s brother” (Matthew 13:55); and further we may consider Numbers 3, 6 identical, because each was brother to Jude (Mark 6:3; Jude 1:1); James the Little, number 5, is clearly the same as the son of Mary, number 4. (Comp. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 24:10.) These might, it is true, be coincidences merely, and, when we remember the frequency of Hebrew names, seem insufficient for more than hypothesis; but we are arguing on probability only, and not to absolute demonstration. Thus far, then, Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, are thought to be one and the same person—the Apostle James, and he the Lord’s brother; the claims of number 1 have been disposed of; those of number 2, the son of Alphæus, remain. The question, perhaps the greatest of all, is whether the process of identification can be extended further, for on this depends largely the issue of the dispute with regard to the brethren of the Lord and the perpetual virginity of His mother.

Further Consideration of “the Brethren of the Lord.”—We have no need in the present instance to enter on the war-path of this theological quarrel. There seems an intentional silence in Holy Writ concerning the family of our Saviour, to teach us, perhaps, that it stood in no spiritually peculiar position nearer to Him than we may be ourselves, and to remind us of His precious words, “Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50). Bearing this in mind, and with thoughts of peace in our heart for those who truly—and reverently—differ from us, we may soon learn the outlines of this discussion.

The terms “brother” and “brethren” meet us so often in the New Testament, as applied to Jesus Christ, that we can hardly pass them by. Do they infer the strict and actual relationship, or one merely collateral?

1. Uterine, or Helvidian Theory.—The advocates of the natural sense, that these men were the younger sons of Joseph and Mary, urge the plain meaning of the Greek word adelphos, i.e., “brother,” and deny its use figuratively. They point, moreover, to Matthew 1:25, and suppose from it the birth of other children in the holy family. Those who shrink from such a view are charged with sentiment, as impugners of marriage, and even with ideas more or less Manichæan concerning the impurity of matter. The German commentator Bleek, and Dean Alford and Dr. Davidson amongst ourselves, contend thus for the actual brotherhood, maintaining the theory originally propounded by Helvidius, a writer of the fourth century, answered by the great Augustine. To their first argument we may answer that in holy Scripture there are four censes of brotherhood, namely, of blood, of tribe, of nation, of friendship, and the three last of these will all apply to the case in point. As for the view based on Matthew 1:25, the words, either in the Greek tongue or our own, authorise it not. To say “ho did not do such a thing until the day of his death does not (as Bishop Pearson has observed) suggest the inference that he did it then or afterwards; and the term “first-born “by no means implies a second, even in our present use of language, under similar circumstances. Above all, though it is confessedly no argument, there is the feeling alluded to by Pearson and others, and acquiesced in by many, that there could have been no fresh maternity on the part of

“Her who with a sweet thanksgiving

Took in tranquility what God might bring;

Blessed Him, and waited, and within her living

Felt the arousal of a Holy Thing.”

“And as after His death His body was placed in a sepulchre ‘wherein never man before was laid, so it seemed fitting that the womb consecrated by His presence should not henceforth have borne anything of man.” It is right, however, that the reader should be referred to the excellent Note of Professor Plumptre on Matthew 12:46, where the question is carefully discussed.

2. Agnatic, or Epiphanian Theory.—A second class of divines are in accordance with the theory of Epiphanius, who was Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, towards the end of the fourth century, and no mean antagonist of the Helvidians. At the head of their modern representatives, facile princeps for scholarship and fairness, is Canon Lightfoot. The brethren of the Lord are said to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife, i.e., before his espousal of the Virgin Mary, and are rightly termed adelphoi accordingly. Far from being of the number of the Twelve, they were believers only after Christ’s resurrection. Thus, then, are explained such texts as Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, John 7:5. By this supposition, James the Lord’s brother must be a distinct person from James the son of Alphæus. But an objection—nay, “the one which has been hurled at the Helvidian theory with great force . . . and fatal effect”—is strangely thought by Lightfoot to be powerless against his favourite Epiphanian doctrine. It is this: our Lord on the cross commended His mother to St. John: “Behold thy mother,” “Behold thy son” (John 19:26-27); “and from that hour,” we are told, “that disciple took her unto his own home.” If the Uterine theory be right, she had at least four sons living at the time. “Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection?” Nor could the fact of His brethren’s unbelief “override the paramount duties of filial piety;” and the objection is weakened further by our knowledge that within a few days “all alike are converted to the faith of Christ: yet she, their mother, living in the same city, and joining with them in a common worship (Acts 1:14), is consigned to the care of a stranger, of whose house she becomes henceforth an inmate.” Now, all this argument, forcible and fatal as it unquestionably is to the idea of real and full relationship, is hardly less so against that of step-sons. For, seeing they were borne by a former wife, they must have been older than Jesus; and, on the death of Joseph, the eldest would certainly have become head of the family, in full dominion over the younger children and the widow herself, and with chief responsibility for their protection and welfare. The custom prevailed under Roman law as well as Jewish, and exists in the East still: being, in fact, a relic of immemorial antiquity. Nor can we conceive, for other than the weightiest reasons, such as immorality or crime, that our Lord, who came “not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil,” would thus openly have set one of its firmest obligations aside. It seems clear that the widowed mother watching by the cross, and soon to be childless among women, with the sword of separation piercing to and through her own soul (Luke 2:35), had none to care for her, except the beloved disciple into whose charge she was given by her dying Son.

3. Collateral, or Hieronymian Theory.—There remains one proposition more, known, from the name of its foremost champion, Jerome, as the Hieronymian theory; and this, on the whole, presents fewest difficulties to the religious mind. The sons of Alphæus (or Cleopas: the name is the same in different dialects) were the cousins of our Lord, their mother and His being sisters; and such a relationship would entirely justify the use of the word “brethren.” The balance of evidence seems to the writer of these Notes to incline towards this venerable belief; and, identifying “the son of Alphæus” with “the brother of the Lord,” he considers him to have been the James of the Epistle. Unless this solution of the difficulty be allowed, we are committed to the recognition of a third James an Apostle, and one so called in only a secondary sense. It is true the term was not strictly applied to the original Twelve, and therefore might have been applied to a third James as well as to a Barnabas; and we will further admit that, if James were one of the unbelieving brethren mentioned in John 7:5, he could hardly have been the early convert enrolled by our Saviour in His apostolic band: though Bishop Wordsworth, on the contrary, thinks that he, like Peter, might have fallen away for a time. A better account for such a statement may be sought in the reflection that, although it is recorded “neither did His brethren believe in Him,” there is no evidence against them all; and in the absence of negative proof it seems safer—at least, not inconsistent with the charity which “hopeth all things”—to think of James and Jude as happy exceptions to the family jealousy and mistrust.

Again, unless we consider the son of Alphæus the brother of our Lord, in the tribal sense of Jerome, we must admit the existence of two men, strikingly similar in life and calling, evidently related, each with a mother named Mary, and brethren Joses and Jude; and to which of these two, if they were not one and the same, can the Epistle be best ascribed?

Opinions of Theologians.—These problems, hard assuredly, seem fairly such as may best be solved by the ingenuity of ancient writers, well acquainted with contemporary ideas. The opinions of moderns, such as Lightfoot, Bleek, Alford, and Davidson, are grounded on no discovery of facts hidden from theologians who were at least as able and honest as themselves; and the old testimony has been so thoroughly sifted that, until more be brought forward, we had better remain undecided if we cannot hold a conclusion fortified by the consensus of Clement of Alexandria and John the Eloquent, in the Greek Church; Jerome and Augustine, in the Latin; Pearson, Lardner, Horne, Wordsworth, and Ellicott in our own; and by German writers, such as Lampe, Hug, Meier, and Lange.

Conclusion.—Thus we see the best ecclesiastical authority and traditions have pretty constantly assigned the authorship of the catholic Epistle to the third name on our list (above), and identified him with the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, in accordance with what we venture to affirm is the plainest path out of the maze.

Further History of James.—So much externally; for internal evidence we have a singular agreement between the fervid abrupt style of the Letter and the character of its reputed writer, known as “the Just” by the Jews, and termed by them (in honour, not reproach) the “Camel-kneed,” from his long and frequent devotions. In no way conspicuous amongst the disciples, he comes into prominence only after the Resurrection; perhaps that witness to the Lord Christ was specially needed in his case to perfect faith, and to transform the silent man of prayer into the strong and fearless leader of the infant Church.

As the first Bishop of Jerusalem we find him (Acts 15) presiding in a solemn assembly to hear the missionary reports and to arrange for the requirements of Gentile converts. The pastoral letter (Acts 15:24-29) may be compared with the catholic one now before us, as it was probably written by the same hand. The last Scriptural notice of James is (Acts 21:18) on St. Paul’s final visit to the Holy City, when, again, a synod of the elders seems to have been held. A Greek Christian writer, named Hegesippus, himself a convert from Judaism, tells us more of the fate of this “bulwark” of the fold. Comparing his highly artificial account (preserved for us in the history of Eusebius: too prolix for insertion here) with the narrative in Josephus, the plain truth seems that James the Just was hurled from a pinnacle of the Temple, and finally despatched by stoning, as a believer in Jesus of Nazareth, about the year 69, immediately before the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman emperor Vespasian. Josephus (Ant. xx. 9) accuses the high priest Ananus, a Sadducee, of the judicial murder, and declares that the “most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, disliked what was done,” and complained to King Agrippa and Albinus the procurator, who, in consequence, removed Ananus from his office. Many authors, ancient and modern, have been of opinion that the martyrdom of James was the “filling up of the sins of Jerusalem, and made its cup of guilt to overflow.”

“Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small:

Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all.”

II. His Epistle.—To whom written.—In the first and chief place, James unquestionably wrote to his countrymen, scattered over the whole earth, though still belonging to their twelve tribes. But in no sense can the Letter be looked upon as an appeal to unbelieving Jews, abounding as it does with references to Christian doctrines held, and Christian works to be maintained, by those who had “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That the majority of its readers would be the poor and meek can hardly be doubted, if we turn to such passages as those in James 2. And it would seem that these struggling societies of humble Christians were in a danger more peculiar to the poor—that is, of envying and fawning upon the rich and well-to-do; forgetting that they themselves were oppressed by such, dragged before judgment-seats, and exposed to the blasphemy and contempt outpoured by unbelievers on the “Christian” name (James 2:6-7).

Style and Character.—In his denunciation of the rich defrauders, James breaks out into a fiery eloquence worthy of an ancient prophet; the tender change from rebuke of the wrongers to comfort for the wronged (James 5:7-8) is unsurpassed in the whole roll of inspired utterance; and in condemnation of lust (James 4:1-4), pride (James 4:5-10), evil speaking (James 4:11-12), and all worldliness (James 4:13-17), the fervour and righteous indignation of the Apostle show of themselves the manner of his life and death: for again, as with God’s servant of old, “the land was not able to bear all his words” (Amos 7:10).

Scope and Aim.—Nothing can be clearer and simpler than the scope and aim of this Letter; as the Sermon on the Mount compared with the rest of Matthew, so this exhortation of James the Just (or “the Wise,” as the Greeks love to call him) stands forth among its fellow Epistles, a lovely gospel of good works, of Christian steadfastness and patience. Some theologians unfortunately, blinded by their own partial apprehension of one side of God’s truth, have misread its chapters, and found therein an opposition to the doctrine of St. Paul. Luther even could go so far as to call the Epistle “worthless as one of straw.” Happily, later criticism has vindicated the teaching of the brother of the Lord; and the plainest reader may learn for himself that Paul and James were at one, infallibly moved by the same Spirit of the living God.

State of Religious Opinion:—Judaism and Christianity.—Let us recollect a little more fully the condition of the faith among those Christians who were first converted from Judaism. With them the adherence to outward forms, the stickling for the letter of the Law, and other like barren principles, had become a belief, which displayed itself in new shapes, corresponding with their altered state of religion. “Wherever,” it has been well said, “Christianity did not effect a complete change in the heart the old Jewish spirit naturally manifested itself in the professed converts.” It was what our Puritan divines quaintly, but correctly, termed “the Popery of the human heart.” The souls that had trusted wholly and entirely in sacrifice as a bare substitution of victims, and deliverance from an indiscriminate vengeance, now clung to faith, as a passive thing, instead. The old idol had, as it were, been torn down by these ardent disciples: a new one was upraised to the vacant niche; faith in a faith became the leading idea, and the light which was in them turned to darkness, the breath of life to death.

Affected by Oriental Theories.—But perhaps a cause of this confusion is to be found much further afield. The Jewish Church had become largely affected by the more remote Eastern thought; the captivity, while it eradicated utterly all wish for idolatry, influenced the chosen people in a strange and unlooked for way. The power of the mystical speculations of India, more especially of the devout followers of Gotoma Sakya Muni, now known as Buddhists, is only beginning to be rightly pondered by Christian scholars and divines. It was not the Persian systems, nor the Chaldæan, but the Hindu (and not infrequently working through, and by means of, them) which perplexed anew the Oriental mind. Here was, doubtless, the origin of the Essenes and other offshoots of Judaism; and even in the Church itself similar mischief may be traced in the varying forms of heresy which drove her almost to destruction. The ancient theory of sacrifice in India was abandoned by the Brahmans, and in its place faith was everywhere preached; the sole essential was dependence on God; implicit “reliance on Him made up for all deficiencies in other respects, whilst no attention to the forms of religion or to the rules of morality was of the slightest avail without this all-important sentiment.”[13] Precisely the same wave of thought seems to have broken on the Jewish Church; and one not much dissimilar, we know, in later times, has changed the whole set of religious tendencies in Western Europe.

[13] See Elphinstone’s India, Vol. i., Book 2, chap. iv., quoting from the text-book called Bhagwat Gita.

Denounced accordingly.—It seems, then, that in complete aversion from such innovations, James wrote what he did of moral righteousness, as opposed to correct belief; in other words, contending for a religion of the heart and not the lips alone; with him Christianity was indeed “a life, and not a mere bundle of dead opinions.” “Wilt thou know, O vain man,” pleads the impassioned Apostle (James 2:20-21), “that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac?” And surely here we catch the echoes of a greater than James, who answered the Jews when they boasted to Him in the Temple, “Abraham is our father,” “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39). His “faith, working by love,” upheld him through a desolating trial. If we look at the motive, he was justified by faith; if we look at the result, he was justified by works. No less a faith than Abraham’s could have wrought thus mightily before the face of heaven, or can so take the kingdom thereof by violence still; and the theology which could discern opposition in the plain declarations of God’s word herein is fit only for the dust that has buried its volumes on forgotten shelves.

“Who are we that with restless feet,

And grudging eyes unpurged and dim,

Among the earthly shadows beat,

And seek to question Him?”

Date of the Epistle.—The Epistle has been called “general”—that is, “universal”—chiefly because it was addressed to no body of believers in one place in particular. The absence of all allusion to Gentile converts fairly proves an earlier date than the circular letter preserved in Acts 15:24-29, that is, somewhere about the year A.D. 44. And, if such be correct, we must look on this as one of the oldest writings in the canon of the New Testament.

Genuineness and Canonicity.—It does not seem to have been known at first to all the early Church, no direct quotation being found till the time of Origen, though indirect references may be traced in the Apostolic Fathers. In the lists of sacred books universally acknowledged, or the contrary, drawn up by Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (in Palestine), at the beginning of the fourth century, the Epistle of James is amongst the latter—the “antilegomena,” or “those spoken against,” along with the Epistles of Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. The uncertainty was with regard to its author; little doubt over being felt concerning its inspiration. The great Greek Fathers of the fourth century all quote it as canonical, and are supported by the Latin. Some of the divines of the Reformation, however, mistrusted it, chiefly on account of internal and doctrinal evidence; and, of course, the German rationalists have eagerly attacked the Epistle from such a ground of advantage. But it has thus far well survived the storms of controversy, and will as surely remain unharmed, to be the help and delight of the patient souls who trust still that “the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

“Hora novissima, tempora pessima sunt, vigilemus;

Ecce minaciter imminet, Arbiter Ille supremus:

Imminet, imminet, ut mala terminet, æqua coronet,

Recta remuneret, anxia liberet, æthera donet.”

So wrote Bernard of Morlaix, seven hundred years ago, with the words of James (James 5:8) above quoted in his heart. It were well to grave them on our own: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Hebrews 10:37). The free translation appended is the familiar one, by Dr. Neale:—

“The world is very evil; the times are waxing late;

Be sober, and keep vigil; the Judge is at the gate:

The Judge that comes in mercy, the Judge that comes with might,

To terminate the evil, to diadem the right.”

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.

THE SALUTATION (James 1:1).

I.Appeals on behalf of—

(i.)1. Patience (James 1:2-4).

2.Prayer for wisdom: to be asked in faith (James 1:5-8).

3.Lowly-mindedness (James 1:9-11).

(ii.)α. Endurance (James 1:12-15).

β.Because of God’s goodness (James 1:16-18).

(iii.)1. Meekness (James 1:17-21).

2.Self-knowledge (James 1:22-25).

3.Practical religion (James 1:26-27).

II.Rebukes on account of—

(i.)α. Respect for persons (James 2:1-9).

β.Because leading to a violation of law (James 2:10-11).

(ii.)Faith without works (James 2:14-26).

α.Example of Abraham (James 2:21-24).

β.Example of Rahab (James 2:25).

γ.Summary (James 2:26).

(iii.)Censoriousness and sins of the tongue (James 3).

α.Warnings and examples against (James 3:5-12).

β.Exhortations to gentleness, or silence (James 3:13-18).

(iv.)1.α. Lust (James 4:1-4).

β.Pride (James 4:5-10).

2.Evil speaking (James 4:11-12;.

3.α. Worldliness (James 4:13-17).

β.Trust in riches (James 5:1-6).

III.Conclusion.

(i.)Exhortation to patience (James 5:7-11).

(ii.)Caution against swearing (James 5:12).

(iii.)Advice of divers kinds:—

α.1. To the sorrowful (James 5:13).

2.To the joyful (James 5:13).

3.To the sick and suffering (James 5:14-15).

β.1. Concerning confession (James 5:16).

2.Concerning prayer: example of Elias (James 5:17-18).

3.Concerning conversion (James 5:19-20).

[References.—Much abler and fuller treatment of the subject may be read in the following books, to all of which, and to many others by way of reference, the writer of these Notes is under much obligation:—

Alford’s Greek Testament, with a Criticalty-revised Text. Vol. IV. Rivingtons, 1871.

Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. (Translated by Urwick.) Vol. II. T. & T. Clark, 1874.

Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament Vol. III. Bagster, 1851.

Home’s Introduction to the Holy Scriptures. Vol. IV. Twelfth Edition. By Tregelles. Longmans, 1869.

Lightfoot on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: Dissertation II., The Brethren of the Lord. Macmillan, 1869.

Meyrick’s articles on “James” and “The General Epistle of James,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. I. Murray, 1863.

Wordsworth’s New Testament, with Introductions and Notes, The General Epistles, &c. Rivingtons, 1872.]

The Epistle of James

According to the oldest arrangement of the New Testament, the epistle of James stands first in order of all the apostolical epistles. The most competent critics generally agree in designating as its author James, the president of the church at Jerusalem, and known as the Lord's brother.

"No doubt," says Dean Stanley, "if we look at James' influence and authority from the more general point of view, whether of the whole Jewish Christian world or of the whole Gentile Christian world, it sinks into nothing before the majesty of Peter and Paul;" but within the circle of the purely Palestinian Christians, and in Jerusalem, James is the chief representative of the Christian society. The later traditions of the Jewish Christians invest him with a priestly sanctity. His austerities and devotions are described in extravagant terms. He is said to have kneeled until his knees were as hard as the knees of camels, and to have been constant in prayer in the temple. He went barefoot, and practised abstinence from wine, and wore the long hair, the linen ephod, and the unshorn beard of the Nazarites, and even abstained from washing. He was known as "The Just." The people vied with each other to touch the hem of his garment; and he is reputed to have called down rain in the drought, after the manner of Elijah. His chair was preserved as a relic until the fourth century, and a pillar in the valley of Jehoshaphat marked the spot where he fell.

The account of his martyrdom is given by Eusebius from the lost work of Hegesippus, by Josephus, and in the Clementine Recognitions. In Hegesippus and the Recognitions, the story is dramatic and deeply tinged with romance. The narrative of the former "is," says Dr. Schaff, "an overdrawn picture of the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits, which may have been derived from 'the Ascents of James' and other apocryphal sources." It is, substantially, as follows: Having been asked, "What is the gate of Jesus?" he replied that he was the Saviour; from which some believed that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, becoming alarmed, came to James, and besought him to restrain the people from going after Jesus, to persuade against him all that came to the Passover, and, with this view, to stand on the pinnacle of the temple, where he might be seen and heard by all the people. They accordingly placed him there, and said, "O Just One, to whom we all give heed, inasmuch as the people is gone astray after Jesus who is crucified, tell us what is the gate of Jesus?" He answered, with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus, the Son of man? He sits in heaven, on the right hand of the mighty power, and he is also about to come in the clouds of heaven." Many being convinced, and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" the Scribes and Pharisees said, "We have done ill in furnishing so great a testimony to Jesus. Let us go and cast him down." They went up then and threw him down, and as he was not killed by the fall they began to stone him. And he, turning round, knelt and said, "I beseech thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But while they were thus stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, cried, saying, "Stop! what do ye? The Just One prays for you;" and one of them, one of the fullers, took the club with which he used to press the cloths, and struck it on the head of the Just One. And so he bore witness, and they buried him on the place by the temple.

The epistle was probably written from Jerusalem, where James would be likely to become acquainted with the condition of the Jews, through those who came up at the feasts. Certain allusions in the epistle go to confirm this. The comparison of the double-minded man to a wave of the sea (James 1:6), and the picture of the ships (James 3:4), might well be written by one dwelling near the sea and familiar with it. The illustrations in James 3:11, James 3:12 - the figs, the oil, the wine, the salt and bitter springs - are furnished by Palestine, as are the drought (James 5:17, James 5:18), the former and the latter rain (James 5:7), and the hot, parching wind (James 1:11), for which the name καύσων, was specially known in Palestine.

The epistle is written from a Jewish stand-point. "Christianity appears in it, not as a new dispensation, but as a development and perfection of the old. The Christian's highest honor is not that he is a member of the universal church, but that he is the genuine type of the ancient Israelite. It reveals no new principle of spiritual life, such as those which were to turn the world upside down in the teaching of Paul or of John, but only that pure and perfect morality which was the true fulfilment of the law" (Stanley). Twice only the name of Christ occurs (James 1:1; James 2:1); the word "gospel" not at all; and there is no allusion to Redemption, Incarnation, Resurrection, or Ascension. The rules of morality which he lays down are enforced by Jewish rather than by Christian motives and sanctions. The violation of the "royal law" is menaced with the sentence of the law (James 2:8, James 2:13); and uncharitable judgment is deprecated on the ground of the law's condemnation, and not as alien to the spirit of Christ.

At the same time, the very legalism of the epistle is the outgrowth of the Sermon on the Mount, the language of which it reflects more than any other book of the New Testament. It meets the formalism, the fatalism, the hypocrisy, the arrogance, insolence, and oppression engendered by the sharp social distinctions of the age, with a teaching conceived in the spirit, and often expressed in the forms of the Great Teacher's moral code. "The epistle," says Dr. Scott, "strikes the ear from beginning to end as an echo of the oral teaching of our Lord. There is scarcely a thought in it which cannot be traced to Christ's personal teaching. If John has lain on the Saviour's bosom, James has sat at his feet."

The following correspondences may be noted:

Matthew James Matthew 5:3 James 1:9; James 2:5 Matthew 5:4 James 4:9 Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:9 James 2:13; James 3:17 Matthew 5:8 James 4:8 Matthew 5:9 James 3:18 Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12 James 1:2; James 5:10, James 5:11 Matthew 5:19 James 1:19 seq., James 1:25; James 2:10, James 2:11 Matthew 5:22 James 1:20 Matthew 5:27 James 2:10, James 2:11 Matthew 5:34 seq. James 5:12 Matthew 5:48 James 1:4 Matthew 6:15 James 2:13 Matthew 6:19 James 5:2 seq. Matthew 6:24 James 4:4 Matthew 6:25 James 4:13-16 Matthew 7:1 seq. James 3:1; James 4:11 seq. Matthew 7:2 James 2:13 Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:11 James 1:5, James 1:17 Matthew 7:8 James 4:3 Matthew 7:12 James 2:8 Matthew 7:16 James 3:12 Matthew 7:21-26 James 1:22; James 2:14; James 5:7-9

The style and diction of the epistle are strongly marked. Links connecting them with the historic individuality of the writer, which are so numerous in the case of Peter, are almost entirely wanting. The expression, "Hearken, my beloved brethren" (James 2:5), suggests the similar phrase, Acts 15:13; and the ordinary Greek greeting, χαίρειν, hail (Acts 15:23), is repeated in James 1:1; the only two places where it occurs in a Christian epistle. The purity of the Greek, and its comparative freedom from Hebraisms, are difficult to account for in a writer who had passed his life in Jerusalem. The style is sententious and antithetic; the thoughts not linked in logical connection, but massed in groups of short sentences, like the proverbial sayings of the Jews; with which class of literature the writer was evidently familiar. His utterance glows with the fervor of his spirit; it is rapid, exclamatory, graphic, abrupt, sometimes poetical in form, and moving with a rhythmical cadence. "It combines pure and eloquent and rhythmical Greek with Hebrew intensity of expression."

List of Greek Words Used by James Only

ἄγε go to James 4:13; James 5:1 ἀδιάκριτος without doubting James 3:17 ἀκατάστατος unstable James 1:18; James 3:8 ἁλυκός salt James 3:12 ἀμάω reap down James 5:4 ἀνέλεος unmerciful James 2:13 ἀνεμίζω to drive with the wind James 1:6 ἀπείραστος that cannot be tempted, or unversed James 1:13 ἁπλῶς liberally, simply James 1:5 ἀποκυέω bring forth, beget James 1:15, James 1:18 ἀποσκίασμα shadow James 1:17 αὐχέω to boast James 3:5 ἀφυστερέω to keep back by fraud James 5:4 βοή cry James 5:4 βρύω to send forth James 3:11 γέλως laughter James 4:9 δίψυχος double-minded James 1:8; James 4:8 εἴκω to be like James 1:6, James 1:23 ἔμφυτος implanted James 1:21 ἐνάλιος in the sea James 3:7 ἐξέλκω to draw away James 1:14 ἐπιλησμονή forgetfulness James 1:25 ἐπιστήμων knowing James 3:13 ἐπιτήδειος needful James 2:16 ὁ εὐθύνων steersman James 3:4 εὐπειθής easy to be intreated James 3:17 εὐπρέπεια grace James 1:11 ἐφήμερος daily James 2:15 θανατηφόρος deadly James 3:8 θρῆσκος religious James 1:26 ἰός poison, rust James 3:8; James 5:3 κακοπάθεια suffering James 5:10 κατήφεια heaviness James 4:9 κατιόω to canker James 5:3 κατοικίζω to cause to dwell James 4:5 κενῶς in vain James 4:5 μαραίνω to fade James 1:11 μετάγω to turn about James 3:3, James 3:4 νομοθέτης lawgiver James 4:12 ὀλολύζω to howl James 5:1 ὄψιμος latter James 5:7 παραλλαγή variation James 1:17 πικρός bitter James 3:11, James 3:14 ποίησις doing James 1:25 πολύσπλαγχνος full of pity James 5:11 προσωπολημπτέω to have respect to persons James 2:9 πρώΐμος early James 5:7 ῥιπίζω toss James 1:6 ῥυπαρία filthiness James 1:21 σήπω to corrupt James 5:2 σητόβρωτος moth-eaten James 5:2 ταλαιπωρέω to be afflicted James 4:9 ταχύς swift James 1:19 τροπή turning James 1:17 τροχός wheel James 3:6 τρυφάω to live daintily James 5:5 ὕλη wood, forest James 3:5 φιλία friendship James 4:4 φλογίζω to set on fire James 3:6 φρίσσω to shudder James 2:19 χαλιναγωγέω to bridle James 1:26; James 3:2 χρή ought James 3:10 χρυσοδακτύλιος adorned with gold rings James 2:2