HOME | Contents | James in the NT | James? Letter | James | James & Jesus |
THERE are two chapters of the early history of Christianity that are very dim; yet they are chapters to which we often turn with fond and eager yearning, seeking to gather up and blend together in one harmonious picture every stray gleam of light we can find. One is the story of the little company in Jerusalem who formed the first Christian congregation. The other is the story of the Nazareth family, the brothers and sisters of our Lord. If we can recover a picture of the second brother, James, from the scattered details with which history provides us, the light from the torch thus kindled may help to illumine both the paths which we would fain explore.
The romance that lies hidden in the story of James the brother of Jesus is the romance of a family reconciliation that was a Divine reconciliation as well. But before we can experience the full force and tenderness of that moving story, we must first endeavour to build, so far as it is permitted to us, a picture of James the Christian. And in order that we may do so, let us first gather together the references in the New Testament that deal with this phase of his career.
The most remarkable and the most crucial reference for the understanding of the story is a brief one in Paul's first letter to Corinth. He is speaking of the resurrection, and he says
"Jesus was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve; after that He was seen by over five hundred brothers all at one time, the majority of whom survive to this day though some have now fallen asleep; after that He was seen by James, and then by all the Apostles, and finally He was seen by myself, by this so-called 'abortion of an apostle' " (1 Cor.xv.5-8).
The James who is here said to have had a special experience of the risen Christ is clearly not one of the twelve disciples; he is Jesus' brother.
This passage is the oldest evidence we have for the resurrection. It purports to give the appearances in their historical order. And we must look at it for a moment to ascertain the occasion of the appearance to James. We see Peter, who had denied his Lord, prostrate in an agony of longing for one more interview, in the awful days that followed the crucifixion, but baulked by the memory of the Cross, and the separating darkness and silence of the tomb. "He cannot be dead"? - these were the words, half protest of frenzy, half question, that kept haunting his mind. It seemed only "that terrible tenacity of hopeless passion that will stand against the hosts of heaven, God's great array of facts." And yet the thought proved true. Somehow he became conscious of his Master's presence - a visitation from beyond the grave. And the great peace of assurance that he was forgiven fell on his anguished soul. The story of the interview is not told, but we see the reflection of it in that letter which was written long afterwards by him. He has hardly put pen to paper before he breaks out into the doxology,
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By His great mercy we have been born anew to a life of hope through the raising again from the dead of Jesus Christ, born to an unscathed, inviolate, unfading inheritance" (1 Peter i.3f.).
The reflection of it is seen, too, in that word which he spoke in Jerusalem at Pentecost:
"It was not possible that He should be holden by death" (Acts ii.24).
It was apparently in the garden of the sepulchre that the interview took place. And when he returned to the Upper Room the contagion of his conviction seized on the rest of the band, and then they too shared a similar experience. He had fulfilled his Lord's command to him, "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke x.32). Then followed a resuscitation of the faith of followers in Galilee through the disciples' testimony - an enthralling, glorious assurance of the living Presence and power of Jesus, taking possession of the lives of more than five hundred at once. It was between this event and the Pentecostal Advent that James, the brother of the Lord, received his assurance that his Elder Brother was not dead. The appearance to "all the apostles" was possibly the visitation at Pentecost. The eleven had returned to Jerusalem, and a company of about a hundred and twenty betook themselves to a time of prolonged, intense, and earnest prayer in the Upper Room, and the rushing breath of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the outcome. Paul has no hesitation in describing his experience on the road to Damascus as of a precisely similar nature to that which the others had had; a sudden illumination in which all the outside world became Immersed in glory, and in the light a heavenly vision. He describes it elsewhere also, and without any contradiction, as an inward vision.
"It pleased God to reveal His Son in me" (Gal.i.16). "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness is he who has shined in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor.iv.6).
Next in historic order of the references to James is that in the Acts of the Apostles (i.14). The list of the eleven disciples is given, and then follow the words; "These all resorted with one mind to earnest prayer, together with the women, with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." Stirred to hope by James' experience and by the disciples' recollection of His promise to return with power, the sorrowing family had joined the disciples to wait. This was in 29AD.
Nine years have passed and the scene is changed. Paul has returned to Jerusalem after his Damascus experience, and his three years' brooding in Arabia.
"He tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, unable to believe he was really a disciple. Barnabas, however, came to his assistance. He brought him to the disciples and related to them how he had seen the Lord upon the road, how the Lord had spoken to him, and how he had fearlessly taught in the name of Jesus at Damascus" (Acts ix.26ff.).
Luke adds that "he then went in and out among them at Jerusalem." But Luke has probably over-emphasised this reconciliation with the Apostles. Let us hear Paul's own witness:
"After three years I went up to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Cephas. I stayed for fifteen days with him. I saw no other apostle, only James, the brother of the Lord" (Gal.i.18f.).
From this word of Paul's we learn that Peter and James at this early date in the history of the Church somehow shared the pre-eminence in Jerusalem. Persecution, or perhaps special missions, had scattered most of the other leaders. This was in 38AD.
Once more the scene changes. James, the son of Zebedee, has been martyred by Herod. Peter has been imprisoned. It is the night of his escape. He comes to John Mark's mother's house, tells his story, and gives this injunction, as he prepares to go: "Report this to James and to the brothers (perhaps, his brothers)" It would seem from this that there were now at least two house-churches in Jerusalem, one in the Upper Room, and one the head of which was Jesus' brother James (Acts .17). This was probably in 44AD.
The next glimpse we get of the man is on a dramatic and highly critical occasion. The inevitable conflict had broken out between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile converts. The former had evidently not broken free from their old religion, in spite of the liberating deed of Stephen. They clung about the Temple and its worship. They regarded themselves rather as another sect within the ancient historic religion. And some of them had actually gone down and made trouble among Paul's converts. They had insisted that the Gentile believers must undergo the Jewish rite of circumcision, and keep the Jewish ceremonial Law about clean and unclean meats. Apparently the people who brought about this crisis were "some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees." Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem and told their story, but these men interposed with their objections. A council was called, and after an acrimonious wrangle Peter rose. He was in favour of a liberal policy. No coercion of the Gentiles: that was his view, backed by his own experience in Caesarea. Paul and Barnabas then followed in support. They repeated their testimony of the evident presence of the Spirit of God among the Gentiles, though none of the ancient rites and ceremonies were imposed. It was when they had finished that James made his appearance. " Men and brethren, hearken to me," he began. And at once it is evident that this man has attained to a position of peculiar authority and honour in the Church at Jerusalem. He corroborated Peter's attitude by a quotation from Amos. And then he added:
"My judgment, therefore, is that we ought not to put unexpected difficulties in the way of those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we send them written instructions to abstain from the pollutions incurred in idolatry, from sexual vice, and from blood-outrage."
James was evidently president of the Council; and his judgment became the finding of the house. Paul and Barnabas were sent away, along with two deputies bearing letters of liberation from all save the high ethical obligations that were binding upon all men. This was in 51 AD. (Acts xv. 1-33).
It is well to set alongside this, Paul's excited - one might almost say angry and contemptuous - account of the meeting. In spite of this liberal decision of the meeting, the open sore was not healed. The Christian legalists continued to send emissaries into the Gentile field. They had met with some success among Paul's converts in Galatia. And Paul writes to rebuke his wavering followers, and to denounce these factious Jewish Christians. In emphatic and stormy language he declares that the Council had nothing to add to his Gospel. They did not dare to say that his message was deficient in any respect. On the contrary, he says, when those "so-called ' authorities' (it makes no difference to me what their status was - God pays no regard to the external distinctions of man), ... when James and Cephas and John, those reputed ' pillars' of the church, perceived the mission which had been graciously entrusted to me, they gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship. Our sphere was to be the Gentiles, theirs the circumcised" (Gal.ii.6-9). Behind the sarcasm, we have here a testimony to the position of weighty authority James had taken in the Jerusalem Church. And so far as the decision of the Council shows, he is a man of tolerant views, a lover of Christian liberty, and above all of peace.
But the incident which Paul goes on to relate as happening subsequently does not leave such a fragrant impression of sweet reasonableness on the mind, as Luke's account of the Council does. Some time after this meeting, Peter paid a visit to Antioch, the head-quarters of the Gentile Christian Church. True to his speech in Council, true to his own experience, he did nor hesitate to lay his Jewish prejudices aside at first and sit at the same table with the Gentiles. Let Paul reveal what followed; only let it be premised that James may have had no part in the deputation, even though they professed to come from him:
"But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face. The man stood self-condemned. Before certain emissaries of James arrived, he ate along with Gentile Christians; but when they arrived he began to draw back and hold aloof, because he was afraid of the circumcision party."
"Certain emissaries from James," and "the circumcision party," are phrases which make it quite clear that in spite of the honour, the deference, and indeed the reverence which all sections of the Jerusalem Christians paid to James, Paul has the strong impression that he belonged to the party of believers who were strict and scrupulous Jews, still fulfilling all the Mosaic Law. Indeed, since some of the Pharisees had become Christian, and looked up to James for guidance, he must have shown not only a special reverence for the Law; but so fulfilled it that men came to see in him an outstanding sanctity of character (Gal.ii.11, 12).
The next glimpse that the Book of Acts gives of him would seem to bear this impression out. Paul has come up to Jerusalem again for the last time. And Luke writes:
"The brothers welcomed us gladly on our arrival in Jerusalem. Next day we accompanied Paul to James; all the presbyters were present."
And after Paul had described what God had done among the Gentiles,
"they said to him" (on account, they said, of the many thousands of believing Jews who had heard of his freedom with the Law), "'Do as we bid you. We have four men here under a vow: associate yourself with them, purify yourself with them, pay their expenses, ... then everyone will understand there is nothing in these stories.' ..."
Here is a great church, thousands of Jew-believers, and James still at the head, indeed enjoying now unchallenged and unshared supremacy. It is a church that has contrived somehow to remain a sect of the ancient faith - obeying the Law, observing the old rites and ceremonies, joining in the Temple worship. Probably they called their own Christian meeting a synagogue. And the year of the Christian era at which we have now arrived is the year 58AD - seven years after the Council (Acts xxi.17-26).
Of the personal circumstances of James nothing can be affirmed with certainty from the pages of the New Testament. In his first letter to Corinth, Paul asks "Have we not a right to take with us on our journeys a Christian sister as our wife, like the rest of the Apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, like Cephas himself" (1 Cor.ix.5)?
Evidently from this, some of Christ's brothers were married, though the word hardly justifies us in saying for certain that James was. James seems to have been accorded the title, certainly the rank of "Apostle" (Gal.i.19). He first comes prominently on the scene of the Church's activity after the murder of James, the son of Zebedee, and he may have taken the place of his namesake in the number of the Twelve.
We have exhausted all the references to James outside the Gospels in the New Testament, save for the letter that bears his name. That James was the author is, of course, stoutly denied by many of the more "advanced" critics. The problem cannot be discussed here in full. But certain features of it must be briefly passed in review. The date cannot be very definitely determined. The phrase "transgressor of the law" (James ii.11) occurs only once elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom.ii.25, cf. 27). Again the phrase "lusts that war in your members" (James iv.1) looks like the echo of another word in the letter to Rome (vii.23); and the sentiments about the trying of one's faith working patience (James i.2-4) seem to reflect yet another thought of Paul's (Rom.v.3-5). When James speaks of the keeper of the law who offends in one point being guilty of all, he is repeating another frequent conception of Paul's. And since a large part of his argument is taken up with the necessity of "works" as a demonstration of faith, it reads like a reply to an extreme interpretation of Paul's view, so that the epistle seems certainly later than that of Paul to Rome. It might be argued on the other hand that the letter of James was known to the writers of the epistles of John, the epistles to "the Hebrews" and to Timothy, and the first epistle of Peter. The corresponding sentiments in James seem more elementary, less guarded, and therefore more primitive. So that we may postulate some date prior to 65AD. The document is addressed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James i.1). And if we cannot affirm that it comes straight from the pen of the brother of our Lord, we may at least suggest, for it seems an anthology of fragments of homilies, that it is a compilation of the sayings of James, made by a member of the Jerusalem Church, possibly after James' death, and some time prior to the fall of Jerusalem when the members of the Jewish Christian Church there were being scattered abroad. It would be cherished as a memorial of the man whom they had held in such honour in Jerusalem.
It is interesting to discover quaint and unusual turns of speech common to the letter and the speech of James and the decree of Council of AD51 in Jerusalem. It is sometimes lightly assumed that Luke freely composed the speeches that are interspersed through his history. There is evidence that on more than one occasion he was at least working on a very circumstantial account of the speech. And here, when Luke says "Symeon" instead of his usual Simon, our expectation is at once aroused. And there are so many ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in these short passages, that we begin to feel Luke must be quoting a good many of James' words verbatim. The form "to greet" at the beginning of the letter of James, and of the letter of the decrees, is an unusual form in the New Testament. It occurs only one other time, where again it is probably an actual letter that is being copied by Luke (Acts xi. 26). The opening of James' speech at the council - "Brethren, hearken to me" - is paralleled in the Epistle (ii.5). "Brethren," or "beloved brethren" is a favourite form of address in the Epistle; it is used some fifteen times. And the word "beloved" - used thrice in the Epistle (i.16,19, ii.5) - is used only here, in the Letter of the Council (Acts xv.25), and never elsewhere in Luke. The peculiar use of the word "to visit" (Jas.i.27, cf. Acts xv.14) seems a Hebraic expression in all the other instances where Luke uses it - something said by a Jew, and not Luke's own. Similarly the expression "your souls" (Acts xv.24) is a Hebraism {cf. Jas.i.21, v.20), as is the form of the word "Symeon." And the phrase "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," in the letter of the Council for which James was doubtless responsible, is - as we gather from the frequent similar usage in Acts - an Apostolic conception, a familiar point of view in the Jerusalem church.
The compound word meaning "to turn" (Acts xv.19), used by James in his speech, is an unusual word for conversion in the New Testament, and James uses it in the letter (v.191.). Similarly the expression "keep oneself from" (Acts xv.29) is used in the letter (i.27), and the Aramaic for τηρὲιν, διατηρὲιν, diaterein looks as if it were a word of the family (cf. Luke ii.19, 51). The expression "upon whom my name is called" (Acts xv.17), is characteristic of James (Jas.ii.7), as indeed is the use of "name" in this sense (cf. Acts xv.14, 26, with Jas ii.7, v.10, 14). The word δαπανάω (Acts xxi.24) used there probably by James, is used similarly in the Epistle (Jas.iv.3), also the word for purify (Acts xxi.24, cf. Jas.iv.8). These and similar correspondences help to make us feel that we are all the time in contact with one and the same mind. The similarity of the word of greeting indeed in Epistle and Decree might suggest that the hand of the writer of the former was that of James himself.
Certain special features of the Epistle call now for consideration.
(1) At the very least, tradition has attributed this writing to James the brother of the Lord because the early Church found in it just that type of mind which all the historical reminiscences of James, who held the place of authority in the Jerusalem Church for thirty years, declared him to be. The writer is an austere moralist, inclined to be very dubious of those who profess faith yet show little sign of it in their deeds. In varying ways he reiterates the words "Faith without works is dead." (Jas.ii.14, 17, l8, 20, 22, 24, 26). It seems quite evident indeed that the writer is a Jewish Christian, a man firmly rooted in the ancient historic faith, yet no mere ceremonialist; a man who firmly believes that the Gospel of Jesus has added a higher and more glorious illumination to the ancient religion. He calls Christianity "the engrafted word which is able to save your souls." And he summons men to obey not merely the Law of Moses, but what he calls "the perfect law of liberty"; the "Royal Law," which he enunciates in the way Jesus did: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This description of the writer fits exactly the man depicted in these New Testament references we have considered.
(2) Perhaps the most marked feature of the letter has now to be considered. No one can read it without constantly coming across sayings and, phrases that recall the great words and thoughts of Jesus. The Royal Law - "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (ii.18) - reminds one of Jesus' emphasis on the two commandments on which hang all the Law and the prophets (Mark .29), and of His own way of putting the golden rule: "Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matt.vii.12).
Take again this writer's insistence on "works" as the proof of the reality of one's faith. Did Jesus never say anything like that? This writer puts the thought in another way when he says " Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only." And he proceeds to make a parable about the man who is a mere hearer and not a doer. Is there nothing like this in the end of the Sermon on the Mount?
"By their fruits ye shall know them." "Not every one that saith to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the, kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." ... "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man that built his house upon rock; ..... And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man that built his house upon sand ..." (Matt.vii.20f.). "Can men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles," said Jesus.
Surely this writer is echoing that memorable word when he says:
"Can the fig tree bear olive berries? either a vine figs? " (James iii.12).
Then listen to this word from the Epistle:
"Speak not evil one of another. ... He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother ... judgeth (makes himself an administrator of) the law; but if thou judge the law thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one law-giver, ... who art thou that judgest?" (iv.11, 12).
The writer simply means: it is the height of presumption to put yourself in the throne of judgment. By that very act you stand judged - and condemned, of censoriousness. Do we catch no echo of the thoughts of Jesus here - "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt.vii.1)?
Or listen again to this from the Epistle: "He shall have judgment without mercy that showed no mercy" (ii.13); and remember how Jesus said: "if ye forgive not men, neither will your Father forgive" (Matt.vi.15). "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt.v.7). Remember His parable of the Unmerciful Servant.
Surely we find echoes of other beatitudes in this letter too. When the writer speaks of "the poor of this world, who are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom" (ii.5), is it not an echo of "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.v.3)? When the letter-writer says "the peacemakers who sow in peace reap righteousness" (iii.18), are we not reminded of the blessedness of the peacemaker (Matt.v.9)? When the writer says "count it all joy when you fall into divers temptations" (i.2), does it not remind us of Jesus' words: "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you. ... Rejoice and be exceeding glad" (Matt.v.11)? And when James goes on to say: "The trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing" (i.3f.), and "we count them happy who endure" (v.11), do not the words recall the good soil in the parable of the Sower: "They who receive the word and keep it and bring forth fruit with patience"(Luke viii.15)? Do they not recall also that other word of Jesus: "In your patience do ye enter into full possession of your souls" (Luke xxi.19)?
Again, when James says: "Swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay ..." (v.12), he is quite consciously and deliberately repeating a word of Jesus (Matt.v.34-37).
Again, when James waxes vehement against riches, is it not in perfect harmony with the teaching of Jesus - "Woe unto you rich! - How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom! ... The deceitfulness of riches!" said Jesus. "Go to, ye rich men, weep, and howl!" says James (v.1). "Ye that say. Today or tomorrow we will ... buy and sell - ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? A vapour!" (iv.14). When we quote these words from James, there rises before the mind Jesus' grim picture of the man saying, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years. ..." But God said: 'Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee' " (Luke .16-21). "Your riches are corrupted, your garments are moth-eaten," says James (v.2); and Jesus said: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt ..." (Matt.vi.19). "The friendship of this world," says James, "is enmity with God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (iv.4). "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon," said Jesus (Matt.vi.24).
Or take the word about asking. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not: and it shall be given him" (Jas.i.5). It is an echo of Jesus' word: "Ask and it shall be given. ... Your heavenly Father knoweth how to give good gifts to them that ask Him" (Matt.vii.7f.). "He maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust" (Matt.vi.45).
Again, "God resisteth the proud, but He giveth grace to the humble" - so James quotes an ancient scripture (iv.6). It is a reflection of the very heart of Jesus' Gospel. "I thank thee, O Father, LORD of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matt.xi.25). It is the little child who is greatest in the Kingdom; it is the child who alone enters the Kingdom.
We might go on multiplying instances. The whole letter, in short, is saturated with the mind of Christ.
(3) But it is not merely the correspondence of thought and expression that we have to mark here.
We must note now the fact that the writer never expressly says that he is quoting Jesus, nor does he acknowledge any indebtedness to the Gospels. Indeed, hardly in any case can he be said to be quoting at all. We can, in fact, scarcely resist the conclusion that we are listening to the reproduction of thoughts from a mind that had lived and laboured for years alongside the Mastermind that created and gave them perfect utterance. They drop out freely and spontaneously, as from a mind that had so absorbed them that they had become part and parcel of its very self. Had James not listened to Jesus' talk, as they wrought side by side at the bench in Nazareth and Capernaum, and half-unconsciously, half-reluctantly, all his thinking had become moulded by it? Perhaps the parables and pictures are Jesus' own.
More striking still, though he now writes as a believer in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, he does not even keep saying, "This was what Jesus thought." He nowhere says it at all. Is it not the natural delicacy of one who, being brother to Jesus according to the flesh, felt it might be boastful and vain to be always referring to "my brother," "my brother"? It is in the very spirit of Jesus Himself. James would base no claim to authority on his consanguinity. Who was he to do that? Jesus would not have liked it. The chief of his intimate memories of Jesus was far too sad, solemn, and tender for public gaze. And Jesus was far above him now, the Lord of Glory; who was he to be always holding before men's eyes the fact that he was His kinsman according to the flesh. It was honour enough for him to call himself His servant (Jas.i.1).
Reserving for the moment a still more striking feature of the letter, surely already we can with a measure of confidence say that we feel behind this letter the mind, aye, and the heart of James the brother of Jesus. He was given the place of honour in the Jerusalem Church, because of his human relationship; never once does he himself trade on this intimate connection.
To this picture of James, tradition sets its crown and seal. The impression of the man, which comes to us from beyond the bounds of Scripture, not only blends harmoniously with this, but carries the stamp of truth within itself. And it is a majestic and noble picture.
Hegesippus, the earliest historian of the Christian Church, himself a Christian Jew, has told the story of James in Jerusalem. James is to be distinguished from others of the same name, he tells us, by the title, "Just," a title that was applied to him from the first.
"He was consecrated from his birth. He drank no wine nor strong drink. He ate no animal food. No razor ever touched his head. He did not anoint himself with oil or use the bath."
This is the description of one whom the Jews would regard as a typically holy man. He was, as Clement puts it concisely in his Recognitions, an ascetic and a Nazirite.
James the Just! - it is a noble reputation to have won from all classes in Jerusalem. And it seems to have been the title given him not by Christians only, but by the whole population of Jerusalem. When the Jews wanted to describe one who came near to a perfect fulfilling of the Law, they called him "just and devout," and the words mean one who obeys the moral precepts in relation to one's fellow-men, and the ceremonial precepts in relation to God. But because James belonged to the sect of the Christians, orthodox Jews would not be so ready to call him "devout." There was no difference of opinion about the other title, however. By universal consent he was "the Just." His sensitive conscience in relation to moral principle made him universally respected. And even the Temple priests had little fault to find with him in his reverence for the ancient ceremonial.
This sheds a strong light not only on the nature of the Jerusalem Church, but on the Nazareth family as well. Not in the case of Jesus alone, but in the case of James, we see clear proof of a very careful upbringing. Nor were they exceptions in this home. It would seem that Judas and Simeon were marked religious men also. All the sons were named after great national leaders and patriarchs (Mark vi.3). And the fact that James was a Nazirite means that his mother had taken this strict religious vow for him in infancy. Beyond a doubt this Nazareth home was one of the homes of the Chasidim - the pious in the land - the homes where the beating heart of the ancient faith could still be felt.
Now it was just to such homes that the sect of the Pharisees owed their origin. Since the Book of Acts informs us that a number of the Pharisees believed, and since we can without difficulty gather that they deferred to James' opinion, it is not improbable that James himself began his religious career as a Pharisee. To all intents and purposes: at least it was a Pharisee believer that came to hold the position of authority for thirty years in the Church in Jerusalem. Here surely is a vivid searchlight flung on the obscurity of this early community. At first sight it seems astonishing that this growing and vigorous and disturbing new "Way," as it was called sometimes, should have held its place so long with comparative immunity from persecution, in the very stronghold of the Jewish faith. For in the last glimpse we get of it in The Acts, we hear what is probably the voice of James himself, speaking of the many thousands of Jews who believe. The fate of Stephen, who was the first to force into prominence the disruptive principles of Christianity, suggests, albeit by contrast, the line this Church took for itself. Nevertheless the New Way, for all the depression that it suffered in this incomplete version of it, was a standing menace and reproach to Israel. That "this sect" maintained its ground in the Holy City, therefore, must be attributed to the influence of James. For, according to the early and well accredited tradition, not only did the Temple priests acknowledge that he was a true and faithful Jew, but - so great was his reputation for sanctity - they allowed him, in spite of his Christian heresy, to enter the inner Temple, as though he were a priest or a Levite himself, and to join in the worship there. To quote Hegesippus again: " To him only was it permitted to enter the inner sanctuary." And then after telling of his constant vigil and atoning prayers in the Temple Courts he adds: "Through his exceeding righteousness he was named Oblias (i.e., 'defence of the people')." Thus through this extraordinary man, wholly given to the life of prayer, the clash between the Temple and the Church of the Christians in Jerusalem was prevented. So great a hold had the New Way taken of the city that strife between the new and the old would have meant a violent disruption of the city's life. Doubtless everyone felt this, and this was the reason for the name Oblias - the people's bulwark. Such a regime could not continue. It went down in blood at length, and Jewish Christianity succumbed to the disease which was inherent in it, and which only a holy life staved off so long. The liberation wrought by Stephen was a nobler achievement than the conservation effected by James. Yet James' task may have had its own part in the plan of God for His Kingdom.
And now at last we are in a position to disclose this man's story, which lies hidden in the New Testament, and to complete it with the aid of extra-canonical history. The tragedy of the Nazareth family was the tragedy of an estrangement; the glory of it was the reconciliation that brought this disunion to an end. It was a family in which the Eldest Born turned out to be a Youth of supreme religious insight, knowing His ancient faith as few knew it, loving His people's history as few loved it, and yet, because of His possession of a new and unheard-of intimacy with God, convinced that the religious leaders of the day had blinded the people and led them astray - so convinced, so passionately convinced of it, that He became the greatest religious Reformer the world has ever known, nay more, the Supreme Instrument of God in the destiny of mankind. And on the other hand, there was the second son of the family, James - without the insight, the originality, the burning magnetic spirit of Jesus; but as deeply imbued in the ancient traditions and Law - narrow, conservative in his outlook, an ascetic glorying in the vow he was under, a Pharisee in spirit, perhaps even in name. It was inevitable that the two spirits should clash, and that James should grow bitter and censorious as he wrought beside Jesus at the bench. It seems likely that the family of brothers, the mother along with them, went from Nazareth to Capernaum after the baptism at the Jordan (John ii.12). The word in John's Gospel seems a pure fact of history. Perhaps the business in Nazareth was surrendered to make a home for a married sister; it was just after the marriage in Cana, and none of the sisters seem to have accompanied them (Mark vi.3). A new business may have been opened in Capernaum; but they were not long there before Jesus began His Gospel campaigning. And in a few weeks the rupture of the family relations took place. Is there no evidence, no hint of this family unhappiness, in the talk of Jesus? Did He not say in poignant irony once:
"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household "?
Or listen again to these words. Do they not seem to come from the depths of a bitter sad experience?
"I say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother Raca (Fool) shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say Morê (Knave) shall be in danger of Gehenna fire. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go -thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. ..." Or this word: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from the heart forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." Or this revealing word spoken in His native town: "A prophet is not without honour save in his own country and among his own kin and in his own house" (Mark vi.3f., cf. John vii.3).
These words are the overflow of a heart that knew its own bitterness. But the story itself lies there, half hidden on the Gospel page. The brethren - for they were all in sympathy with James - began to resent His ongoings. Perhaps they were annoyed the day He chose the Twelve and brought them home to the house. The attempt to have a meal together was interrupted. The crowds had gathered. The scornful officials of the synagogue were muttering, "He is in league with the devil - it is the power of Beelzeboul." And the family doubts about the Elder Brother came to a head. Even His mother was influenced against Him. And they all appeared this day on the outskirts of the throng while He was passionately haranguing the people. Perhaps some cunning scribes had thought to end His reforming career, not merely by making insinuations about His sanity themselves, but by persuading the family to display their suspicions openly too. James, the second eldest, would be the primemover in this, and it would seem that Jesus heard James' excited voice saying: "We must take Him home - He is mad, He is mad - He is beside Himself" (Mark iii.21). And one of the crowd said, "Here are your mother and brothers outside wanting you." No epigram, no maxim of cold philosophy; far more than indignant rebuke - the words that follow; every syllable of them is a drop of blood. "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" asked the quivering lips. Then He looked round - and round - on them which sat about Him (Mark iii.34).
To quote words we have used elsewhere: "The memory of that look never faded out of Peter's mind. It is due to him, we have it recorded in the Gospel. Anguish, shame, yearning, sorrow unutterable; a long hesitation while the call of the blood, the love of family, the ties of home, tugged and strained at His heart. And then they broke. Thrusting out His hand (Matt..49) - the only time we are ever told of a gesture of the Master's hands while He spoke in public - in an abrupt, swift movement towards His twelve disciples,
He said: 'Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and sister and mother.'
That was enough. Mother and brethren understood, and turned and stole away. And as they went, His brother James, stung to alertness by the smart of the rebuke, caught the sad words like a knell of doom,
'I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof at the Day of Judgment' (Matt..36).
James had called his Brother mad. An idle word! A cruel word, worse than the thrust of an assassin's sword! The last of many."
Is it merely fanciful to say that James heard his Brother's reproach in this word? We turn once more to the Epistle of James - to consider the point we deferred some pages back. And at once words leap to light, which almost compel us to believe they come from this brother of the Lord. Let me repeat them here.
"My beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" (i.19). Then a little later this: "If any man among you seem to be religious and bridle not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain" (i.26). And later this: "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. ... The tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; ... it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell" (iii.6).
And does not this read like a deliberate contrast between his own proud, Pharisaic, so-called wisdom and the wisdom of the meek and lowly One?
"If ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." What a picture of divided brotherhood that is! "Wherever jealousy and rivalry exist, there disorder reigns, and all sorts of evil actions."
But James knew well that the cause lay not at all with his Elder Brother - only with himself, his bitter and jealous self. For do not the words that follow read like James' veiled picture of the gentle Heart of Love that, many; a time beside the bench, refused to be provoked by his bitter tongue: "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without duplicity, straightforward. And the peace-makers who sow in peace reap righteousness" (Jas.iii.145.)? As we listen to all these words, do they not convey to us the feeling that they are the confession of one who had too much reason to know the sin and sorrow of a bitter tongue - the record in short of James' belated remorse? For in spite of the fact that he refused to be convinced by Jesus in his early intercourse with Him, that he listened, with a hostile and censorious heart, to the golden words dropping from the gracious lips, surely this letter proves what a deep impression those sayings of the Master made in his mind. He could not get away from them. The angry opposition of James to Jesus was simply the explosive violence of a thoroughly unhappy man.
But why did Jesus repudiate His kinsfolk, sever the ties of blood, renounce home? Because it was no longer home to Him, for one thing. Where love ceases, home is no more. But chiefly it was in the interests of a holier ideal of home. "Whoever does the will of God, that is my brother and sister and - mother." ("And mother!" - The last words to fall from His reluctant lips at this time; it cost Him the effort of a son's breaking heart). They who do God's will - these were the ones who now claimed the undivided love of His heart. So, in the very moment when He made Himself homeless, He constituted His new family, under the open sky. He became homeless for the sake of the true ideal of home - homeless that men might learn to take God with them into their homes and make them homes indeed.
And so it proved for the Nazareth family. When the news reached Galllee that Jesus' life was in danger, that He was in Jerusalem, and that any day He might die, the memory of the gentle Soul so passionately convinced of the sweet mercy of God, and the thought of Him now steadfastly, consistently facing death for the sake of His convictions, overcame the hostile brother, and with the whole family he travelled south to Jerusalem (John xix.25; Acts i.14).
In terrible suspense the family waited, eagerly gleaning scraps of information about each stage of the trial. Then came the news of the sentence of death. And all James' long-crushed love for a noble brother broke through the hard crust of religious bigotry and pride. And all his bitter revilings of the early days in Nazareth and Capernaum rushed up before his eyes to condemn him. He had deceived his own heart. He had fancied he was religious - a very superior and self-righteous person he had been, but what about his tongue? Had he always bridled his tongue? Nay, it had been a spark of fire that had set all his soul ablaze as with the flames of hell. It had wrought estrangement, confusion, sorrow, tragedy, in the home. He had thought himself wise! He had lied against the truth! His wisdom was anything but from above. It was simply vain tradition, earthly wisdom, fleshly, devilish.
And over against that solemn self-conviction rose the noble form of the Brother he had wronged. So gentle, so silent, answering not again - true to Him-self till the last in Caiaphas' judgment hall, so pure, so peaceful, so easily entreated, so full of compassion, so singlehearted. Yes, in a thousand ways He had shown by His life how infinitely He transcended him in goodness. There was absolutely no hypocrisy in Him - transparent through and through, It was all clear to James now; Jesus was right and he was terribly wrong. With Him all the time was the wisdom that is from above. He would seek His forgiveness ere it was too late. And he hastened out. But the grim procession had passed on to Calvary. He followed almost beside himself with grief. But already the eyes were glazed in death. He could speak to Him nevermore.
He returned to Jerusalem dazed and dumb. They could not get him to speak or to break his fast. Three days passed like this. Then came news that Peter, who was in like case with himself, had found peace for his tormented soul - had been made aware of the Presence of Jesus - risen from the dead, and had felt the Divine forgiveness flowing into his torn heart from the living touch of his Lord. James listened in frenzied suspense. His rigid face relaxed. His whole frame was shaken in a paroxysm of grief and longing and despair. Then the words came - terrible, fierce, pitiless, unsparing of himself. "I have sworn a vow," he said, "that I would eat no bread from the hour I saw my Brother on the Cross; never again will I eat bread, unless I see Him, unless He speaks to me from beyond the grave, unless I am permitted to speak my repentance to Him."
This tradition is recorded for us in The Gospel according to the Hebrews. And one can scarcely doubt that it is essentially true. His wish was granted. It befel him as it had befallen Peter. His crucified Brother came back to him; how, we know not, but Paul tells us that it happened. The peace of a reconciliation, sweet yet terrible, took possession of James, and through him, it reached the rest of the family. He must have heard from Jesus' lips words like those the brothers heard from the long lost Joseph in Egypt centuries ago: "I am Jesus, your brother, whom you cast out from the home in Galilee. Now, therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves. ... God sent me forth from you to save lost lives, ... to save them by a great deliverance. It was not you that sent me to the Cross, but Love - God."
Though it is only vaguely hinted at in the New Testament, it is one of the most thrilling and moving of all the instances of the power that was given to the Son of Man on earth to forgive sins. And the result of it travelled far. Through James' experience, doubtless, the mother and brethren were persuaded to wait with the little company in the Upper Room, until in answer to their long vigil of prayer and fasting, there came on them the great ecstasy of Pentecost. The Spirit of the risen Jesus took possession of their souls with contagious and resistless power. And James became a dedicated life - dedicated to the service of his Brother's Cause. Raised by universal consent to be head of the Church in Jerusalem, he made it the one aim and object of his life to atone for, and undo, the blood-curse, which the Jewish people had deliberately taken on themselves by the Cross of Jesus. It was his desire to win Jerusalem, to win the nation, for the Kingdom. Reconciled to God by the Great Peacemaker, who had wrought reconciliation in the family by His death, he would now be a reconciler too. He stood between the rapidly growing Church in Jerusalem and the ancient hierarchy of the Temple, a life consecrated to this holy task. And he won the reverence and respect of both sides. He stopped many a fierce quarrel that might have led to bitter persecution and bloodshed. For the Roman guard looked on, ready to intervene and suppress rioting with a ruthless hand. Again and again the city had James to thank for preserving its peace. It was for this that he came to be called "Oblias" - bulwark of the people. Day after day he spent, praying on bended knees for the people's forgiveness - praying (the old tradition in the record of Hegesippus means) that the national sin, the tragic shame and curse of having reared the Cross, might be undone, and the whole race brought in, reconciled, won for the Gospel and the Kingdom of God; praying - this ancient story goes on to say - until his knees became like camel's knees, padded with great, thick callosities of horny skin.
Then came the end. In the year 62AD - according to Josephus the historian - during an interval between the death of Festus, before whom Paul was tried, and the arrival of his successor Albinus, the high Priest Anan, a rash, impulsive spirit, arrested James and delivered him - to be stoned. Jerusalem was at this time rapidly passing into that turbulent condition of anarchy and revolution that ended in the revolt from Rome, and the subsequent siege and fall of the city in 70AD. Here in this moment when the reins of Roman control were relaxed, the revolutionary party of the priests determined to suppress this new faith, which was making rather for peace with Rome. Was it perhaps to the restraining hand of James, that Paul was referring, when he wrote to the church in Thessalonica: "The secret force of lawlessness is at work already; only it cannot be revealed till he who at present restrains is removed" (2 Thes.ii.7)?
James was subjected to a semblance of a trial, like his brother Jesus. They enquired about the New Way. "O thou Just One," they asked, "to whom we are all bound to listen, what is the door of Jesus?" The clue to the strange question lies in the Gospel of John, who was a member of the Jerusalem church up till this time. In that Gospel Jesus is represented as saying, "I am the Door; by me if any man enter in he shall be saved." The "Door" was a familiar figure for expressing religious truth in the East. The Persians call their great mediator Bahu, "Bab" the Gate, to signify that his soul is the spiritual portal between the unseen world and the earth, and that believing in him means winning access to this spiritual or Divine world. So when they asked James this question they meant: "In what way does He claim to bring men into contact and communion with God?" And James answered: "You ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He is both seated in heaven on the right hand of Power, and He will come again on the clouds of heaven."
These are familiar words repeating the great claim which Jesus made for Himself in the days of His flesh, and which is made for Him again and again in the Book of Acts. Translated into the thought of our day, it means: Jesus has been raised up from the dead. His human life, entering the realm of the Eternal beyond the grave, has not only been set free from its earthly limitations, but has been endowed with full control over the spiritual resources of God. Through His risen life the power of the Spirit now flows into the lives of the believers. James is therefore bearing testimony to Pentecost, and to every manifestation of the Spirit in the story of the spread of Christianity in those early years. But by that word, "He will come again on the clouds of heaven" - the way the dreamers spoke of the triumphant vindication of the Kingdom of God among men at last - James is declaring that this new Faith is going to have a world-wide victory, and to displace all older forms of faith.
And the crowd, listening in the court of the Sanhedrin, cried, "Glory to God!" And many believed. The scribes and Pharisees when they heard the shouting in response to games' answer, feared lest the people would look to Jesus, and they said, "We have done ill in bringing about such a testimony to Jesus. Alas! even 'the Just' has gone astray. Let us go up and cast him down." So James was led to a pinnacle of the Temple and flung down. Then they called on their hired assassins to stone him, for he was not killed outright by the fall. And James, kneeling in his martyr hour in the place where his Brother was condemned to death, followed in the footsteps of Him who had become his Saviour, as with his latest breath he prayed, "O lord God my Father, I beseech thee forgive them, for they know not what they do." Then a fuller smote him on the head with his club. James' testimony was ended - and crowned. They buried him there; and on a monument to mark the spot, it is said his comrades inscribed:" He hath been a true witness both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is Christ."
He had proved his faith by his life - his works. His works do follow him.
"And still - unwavering faith holds sure The words that James wrote sternly down: Except we labour and endure We cannot win the heavenly crown. O Way Divine, through gloom and strife Bring us Thy Father's Face to see. O heavenly Truth, O precious Life, At last, at last, we rest in Thee."