Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - James
(Show All Books)
Chapter Commentaries:
Verse Commentaries:
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT
HANDBOOK
TO
THE GENERAL EPISTLES
OF
JAMES AND JOHN
BY
JOH. ED. HUTHER. TH.D.,
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT
HANDBOOK
TO
THE GENERAL EPISTLES
OF
JAMES AND JOHN
BY
JOH . ED. HUTHER. TH.D.,
PASTOR AT WITTENFÖRDEN, SCHWERIN.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
MDCCCLXXXII.
THE TRANSLATION OF
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES
HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY
PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.
THE EPISTLES OF JOHN
BY
REV. CLARKE H. IRWIN, M.A.
PREFACE
With regard to the question whether the author of this Epistle, the brother of the Lord, is or is not identical with the Apostle James, I have not been able to change my earlier convictions. If in more recent times the opposite view has been occasionally maintained, this is either in the way of simple assertion, or on grounds which proceed from unjustified suppositions. This present edition will show that I have exercised as impartial a criticism as possible with regard to my own views, as well as with regard to the views of others.
The quotations from Rauch and Gunkel refer to their reviews of this commentary published before the second edition; the one is found in No. 20 of the Theol. Literaturblatt of the allgem. Kirchenzeitung of the year 1858; and the other in the Göttingen gel. Anz., Parts 109–112 of the year 1859. I have occasionally quoted Cremer’s biblischtheol. Wörterbuch des neutest. Gräcität. The more I know of the value of this work, the more I regret that it does not answer to its title, inasmuch as those words are only treated which the author considers to be the expressions of spiritual, moral, and religious life. A distinction is here made which can only with difficulty be maintained. I have quoted Winer’s Grammar, not only according to the sixth, but also according to the seventh edition, edited by Lünemann.
I again close this preface with the hope that my labour may help to make the truly apostolic spirit of the Epistle of James more valued, and to render its ethical teaching more useful to the church.
J. ED. HUTHER.
WITTENFÖRDEN, Nov. 1869.INTRODUCTION
SEC. 1.—JAMES
[1] 1 No certain decision can be come to on this difference, especially as the narrative of Hegesippus (comp. Lange’s Komment., Einleitung, p. 13 f.) bears unmistakable mythical traces; and in the relation of Josephus: παράγων εἰς αὐτὸ ( τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ , τοῦ λεγουμένου Χριστοῦ , Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ καὶ ) τινας ( ἑτέρους ) … παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους , the genuineness of the bracketed words is at least doubtful; Clericus, Lardner, Credner assert their spuriousness.
As regards the question whether this James is to be considered as identical with the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus, as is maintained in recent times by Lange, Bouman, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others, or as a different person, the data given in the N. T. are more favourable to the idea of non-identity than to the opposite opinion. 1. When mention is made in the N. T. of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus, they are represented as a circle different from that of the apostles. Thus they are already in Joh_2:12 distinguished from the μαθηταῖς of Jesus; the same distinction is also made after the choice of the twelve apostles (Mat_12:46; Mar_3:21; Mar_3:31; Luk_8:19; Joh_7:3), and in such a manner that neither in these passages nor in those where the Jews mention the brethren of Jesus (Mat_13:55; Mar_6:3[2]) is there the slightest indication that one or several of them belonged to the apostolic circle: rather their conduct toward Jesus is characterized as different from that of the apostles; and, indeed, it is expressly said of them that they did not believe on Him (Joh_7:5). Also after the ascension of Christ, when His brethren had become believers, and had attached themselves to the apostles, they are expressly, and in the same simple manner as before, distinguished from the Twelve (Act_1:14; 1Co_9:5). 2. In no passage of the N. T. is it indicated that the ἀδελφοί of the Lord were not His brothers, in the usual meaning of the word, but His cousins; and, on the other hand, James the son of Alphaeus is never reckoned as a brother of Jesus, nor is there any trace of a relationship between him and the Lord. Certainly the Mary mentioned in Joh_19:25 ( Ἡ ΤΟῦ ΚΛΩΠᾶ ) was the mother of the sons of Alphaeus (Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40), as ἈΛΦΑῖΟς and ΚΛΩΠᾶς are only different forms of the same name ( çìôé ); but from that passage it does not follow that this Mary was a sister of the mother of Jesus (see Meyer in loc.). 3. According to the lists of the apostles, only one of the sons of Alphaeus, namely James, was the apostle of the Lord. Although the Apostle Lebbaeus (Mat_10:3), whom Mark calls Thaddaeus (Mar_3:18), is the same with Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου in Luke (Luk_6:15; Act_1:13), yet he was not a brother of James; for, on the one hand, if this were the case he would have been called so by Matthew, who expressly places the brothers among the apostles together; and, on the other hand, ἈΔΕΛΦΌς is not to be supplied to the genitive ἸΑΚΏΒΟΥ in Luke,—contrary to all analogy—but ΥἹΌς (see Introduction to Commentary on Jude, sec. 1). According to Mat_27:26 and Mar_15:40, Alphaeus, besides James, had only one other son, Joses. If the apostles Judas and Simon were also his sons, his wife Mary in the above passages would have been also called their mother, especially as Joses was not an apostle. From all these data, then, the brothers of the Lord, James, Judas, and Simon, are not to be considered as identical with the apostles bearing the same names. 4. There are, however, two passages, Gal_1:19 and 1Co_15:7, which appear to lead to a different conclusion. In the first passage ΕἸ ΜΉ appears to indicate, as many interpreters assume, that Paul, by the addition for the sake of historical exactness, remarks that besides the Apostle Peter he saw also the Apostle James. But on this supposition we cannot see why he should designate him yet more exactly as ΤῸΝ ἈΔΕΛΦῸΝ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ , since the other Apostle James was at that time dead. The addition of this surname indicates a distinction of this James from the apostle. Now εἰ μή does certainly refer not only to οὐκ εἶδον (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 482; Neander, Winer), but to the whole preceding clause; still, considering the position which James occupied, Paul might regard him, and indeed was bound to regard him, as standing in such a close relation to the real apostles that he might use ΕἸ ΜΉ without including him among them.[3] It is evident that Paul did not reckon James among the original apostles, since in Galatians 2 he names him and Cephas and John together, not as apostles, but as ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΕἾΝΑΊ ΤΙ , ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΣΤΎΛΟΙ ΕἾΝΑΙ .[4]
In the other passage, 1Co_15:7, the word πᾶσιν may be added by Paul, with reference to James formerly named, in the sense: “afterwards Christ appeared to James, and then—not to him only, but—to all the apostles,” from which it would follow that James belonged to the apostles. But this reference is not necessary, as πᾶσιν may as well be added in order simply to give prominence to the fact that all the apostles, without exception, had seen the Lord.[5] 5. All the other reasons for the identity, which are taken from the N. T., as adduced by Lange, are too subjective in character to be considered as conclusive; as, for example, that Luke in Act_12:17 would have felt himself obliged to notice that the James mentioned by him here and further on, is not the same with the James whom he had called an apostle in Act_1:13;[6] that only an apostle could have written such an epistle, and have attained to that consequence which James possessed in the Church;[7] and that it is improbable that, besides the Apostles James, Judas, and Simon, there should be three of the brothers of Jesus bearing the same names.[8]
[2] According to the Receptus, the names of the brothers of Jesus are James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. Instead of Ἰωσής in Matthew, Lachmann and Tischendorf have adopted, according to preponderating authority, Ἰωσήφ ; in Mark they, however, read Ἰωσῆτος ; yet here also the Codex Sinaiticus has Ἰωσήφ . It remains doubtful which is the correct name. Comp. Meyer on the passage in Matthew.
[3] Meyer (in loc.) supposes that James is here reckoned by Paul among the apostles in the wider sense of the term. But it is also possible that the words εἰ μὴ κ . τ . λ . are not to be understood as a limitation to the thought before expressed, ἕτερον δέ κ . τ . λ ., but as a remark added to it, by which Paul would lay stress upon the fact that besides Peter he has also seen James, the brother of the Lord, thus the man who possessed not only an apostolic dignity, but to whom the opponents of Paul directly appealed.
[4] That James is reckoned by Paul among the στύλοις , has certainly been adduced as an argument for the opposite opinion; but that Paul does not reckon those named as στύλοι because they were apostles, is undeniable; and that only apostles could be considered as στύλοι , is an unwarranted assumption. Bouman thinks that a mere private, person could not attain to such an importance; but he overlooks the fact that James, as the most prominent of the brothers of the Lord, who are named alongside of the apostles, was more than a mere private person.
[5] Otherwise Meyer (in loc.), who here also understands the expression ἀπόστολοι in the wider sense, which certainly receives a justification from the fact that the original apostles had before been designated by Paul as οἵ δώδεκα .
[6] Against this it is to be affirmed, that Luke might certainly assume such an acquaintance on the part of his readers with the circumstances, that in speaking of James in Jerusalem he did not deem it necessary to remark which James he meant. He even names Philip (Luk_8:5) without saying whether he was the apostle or the deacon. Bleek (Einl. in N. T. p. 545) explains the matter differently; that as the Acts of the Apostles is not to be considered an independent work of Luke, we may suppose that he retained the simple designation James as he found it in his document, without making any remark on the relation of this James to Jesus and to James the son of Alphaeus.
[7] The important position of James in Jerusalem was not founded on the apostolate, as that office points rather to missionary activity than to an episcopal superintendence of a church.
[8] This similarity ceases to be remarkable, when we consider how frequently the same names are given to different persons in the N. T.; we have only to adduce the names Mary, Simon, Joseph, Judas, etc. On the supposition of the identity of these three apostles with the three brothers of Jesus, then in the passages Mat_12:46 (Mar_3:31; Luk_8:19) and Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5, only one brother of the Lord, Joses (or Joseph), could be referred to, particularly as sisters could not be included in the idea of brothers, as Lange, it is true, thinks is the case in Act_1:13-14.
The testimonies of the post-apostolic age are much too uncertain to decide the controversy; for whilst Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1 : δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν Ἰακώβοι · εἷς ὁ δίκαιος … ἕτερος δὲ ὁ … καρατομηθείς ) and Jerome declare for the hypothesis of identity, the Apostolic Constitutions (2:55, 6:12, 14; in the latter passage, after the enumeration of the twelve apostles, there are yet named: Ἰάκωβής τε ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελφὸς καὶ Ἱεροσολύμων ἐπίσκοπος καὶ Παῦλος ὁ τῶν ἐθνῶν διδάσκαλος ) and Eusebius (commentary on Isa_17:5 in Montfaucon, coll. nova patr. II. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12, vii. 19) definitely distinguish the brother of the Lord from the apostles. The statement of Hegesippus (in Euseb. iv. 22), to which Credner appeals against, and Kern and Lange for the identity, is not in favour of it;[9] also the extract of Jerome from the Hebrew gospel cannot with certainty be quoted for it (Hieron. dc vir. illustrib. chap. ii.); and still less the passage in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 35, where the words τῷ λεχθέντι ἀδελφῷ τοῦ κυρίου μου annexed to Ἰακώβῳ admit of the explanation that the designation ἀδελφ . τ . κύρ . was his familiar surname. The opinions of the later Church Fathers are evidently of no weight either for or against the identity.
[9] The passage is: μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον , ὡς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ , πάλιν ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ Συμεὼν ὁ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος · ὅν προέθεντο πάντες ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον . In this passage the translation of αὐτοῦ , of πάλιν , and of δεύτερον is doubtful. Kern and Lange refer αὐτοῦ to ὁ κύριος , connect πάλιν directly with ὁ ἐκ θείου αὐτοῦ , and refer δεύτερον to ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου . But αὐτοῦ may, as Credner remarks, also refer to Ἰάκωβον , and πάλιν be connected with καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος , and δεύτερον with ὅ προέθεντο . If αὐτοῦ is referred to Ἰάκωβον , then James is designated as the real brother of Jesus, since in another passage (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 22) Simeon the son of Clopas is called by Hegesippus the son of the uncle of Jesus; if, on the other hand, it is referred to ὁ κύριος , nothing is said regarding the relationship of James to Jesus; it thus depends on the interpretation of πάλιν and δεύτερον . It cannot be denied that παλιν is more naturally connected with καθίσταται ἐπίσκοπος than with the words which immediately follow, as in that case it would clearly mean that Simeon became bishop a second time; but δεύτερον may at least as well be connected with ὅν προέθεντο (in the sense: “whom all appointed the second bishop”) as with ὄντα ἀνεψ . τ . κυρίου .—Thus, then, the explanation of Credner is not inferior to that of Kern and Lange, but rather appears to be the more probable, as Hegesippus elsewhere designates James simply as the brother of the Lord, and never indicates that he was an apostle; rather in the words: διαδέχεται δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀσοστόλων ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰάκωβος , ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος … Ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι ἐκαλοῦντο , he seems at least to distinguish him from the apostles. According to Hegesippus, Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Euseb. iii. 4), and thus Simeon as the son of Clopas was ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ κυρίου . Whether this is correct must indeed remain uncertain; it finds no support in the N. T., as there the sons of Clopas (= Alphaeus) are only James and Joses. From these remarks it follows how unjustifiable is the assertion of Lange: “We learn from Hegesippus that James the brother of the Lord was a brother of Simeon, and that both were the sons of Clopas.”
On the assumption of identity, the word ἀδελφός cannot be understood in its usual sense. The opinion, obtaining most favour since the time of Jerome, is that the so-called ἀδελφοί were the cousins of Jesus, namely, the sons of the sister of His mother, who was also called Mary, and was the wife of Clopas (= Alphaeus). This view is supported by the interpretation of Joh_19:25, according to which the words Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ are taken in apposition to the preceding ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ; and so the passage is explained by Theodoret: ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἐκαλεῖτο μέν , οὐκ ἦν δὲ φύσει … τοῦ Κλωπᾶ μὲν ἦν υἱός , τοῦ δὲ κυρίου ἀνεψίος · μητέρα γὰρ εἶχε τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου μητέρος . The correct interpretation of that passage removes all ground for this opinion. Accordingly Lange (in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädic, and repeated in his Commentary, Introduction, p. 10), instead of this view, has advanced the theory, that as Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was a brother of Joseph, the so-called brethren of Jesus were properly His step-cousins, but after the early death of Clopas were adopted by Joseph, and so actually became the brothers of Jesus. But this opinion is destitute of foundation; for even although the narrative of Hegesippus is correct, yet tradition is silent concerning the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, and as little “does history know that the sons of Alphaeus formed one household with the mother of Jesus, and were prominent members of it,” as Lange maintains. By the denial of identity, ἀδελφός is to be understood in its proper sense. Thiersch (Krit. d. ncu. test. Schriften, pp. 361, 430 ff.) adopts the opinion contained, according to his conjecture, in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and already advanced by Origen (on Matthew 13), that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former marriage; but against this Wiesinger rightly insists on the fact that this opinion of Origen “was by no means prevalent in his time.” It owed its origin apparently to a delicacy to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, as Thiersch confesses that “it is not to him a matter of indifference whether the mother of the Lord remained ἀεὶ παρθένος .” The evangelists, however, have not this feeling, for otherwise Matthew and Luke would not have said of Mary: ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον , which points to the birth of later children not only as a possible, but as an actual fact. If it were otherwise, there would be some indication in the N. T. that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, or that the ἀδελφοὶ Ἰησοῦ were not her children. According to the N. T., the brothers of Jesus, to whom James belonged, are the children of Mary born in wedlock with Joseph after the birth of Jesus; as is correctly recognised by Herder, Credner, Meyer, de Wette, Wiesinger, Stier, Bleek, and others.
In what the evangelists relate of the brothers of Jesus, James is not particularly distinguished. Accordingly we are not to consider his conduct as different from that of the rest. Although closely related by birth to Jesus, His brothers did not recognise His higher dignity, so that Jesus with reference to them said: οὐχ ἔστι προφήτης ἄτιμος , εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὑτοῦ , καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὑτοῦ (Mat_13:56). Lange incorrectly infers from Joh_2:12, where the brothers of Jesus are first mentioned, that “even at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus they were spiritually related (that is, by faith) to the disciples;” for at that time the brothers had not attached themselves to the disciples, but went with them from Cana to Capernaum that they might accompany Mary. At a later period we find them separated from the disciples (see Mar_3:21; Mat_12:46; Luk_8:19);[10] they go with Mary to the house where Jesus is, because, thinking that He was mad, they wished to bring Him home with them, which was evidently no sign of their faith, but rather of their unbelief.[11] After the miracle of the loaves, when the feast of Tabernacles was at hand, they are with Jesus in Galilee; but that even at this period they did not believe on Him, is expressly asserted by John (Joh_7:5). Only after the ascension do we find them as disciples of the Lord in close fellowship with the apostles. We are not informed when this change took place, but from the fact that Jesus on the cross resigned His mother, as one forsaken, to the care of John, we may conjecture that even then they did not believe. It is probable that our Lord’s appearance after His resurrection to James (1Co_15:5) decided his belief, and that his conversion drew his brothers along with him, as may be inferred from the force of his character. So Bleek, Einl. in d. N. T. p. 546. James at an early period obtained in the church of Jerusalem such a position that he appears as its head (about A.D. 44); yet this position is not that of a bishop in distinction from presbyters, but he was one of the presbyters (Act_15:22-23), whose loftier dignity was not derived from any special official authority, but only from his personality. In the conference at Jerusalem (in the year 50, Acts 15) James not only took an important part, but his voice gave the decision. We cannot call his advice, in accordance with which the definite resolution was arrived at, a compromise; for the question whether believers among the Gentiles were obliged to be circumcised could only be affirmed or denied. James decided the question in the negative, grounding his opinion not on his own experience, nor on the communications of Paul and Barnabas, but on the divine act narrated by Peter, wherein he recognised the commencement of the fulfilment of the definite λόγοι τῶν προφητῶν . When he imposed upon the Gentile Christians ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων καὶ τῆς πορνείας καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος , he does so, not in the same sense as that in which the Judaizers imposed on them the observance of the law; and when as a reason he appeals to the reading of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues even of Gentile cities, he intimates that he wished to draw the boundary to the freedom of the Gentile Christians, within which they must keep themselves, if it were to be possible for the Jewish Christians to live in brotherly fellowship with them. That James not only recognises Gentile Christianity, but also the ἀποστολή of Paul, is apparent from Gal_2:7 ff.; yet it does not follow that he entered entirely into Paul’s views. According to Gal_2:12, the persons there called τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου were offended because Peter and the other Jews did eat μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν . We are not told in the narrative of Paul that these did not come directly from James, but only from Jerusalem, at least that they had not been sent by James, or that they had expressed themselves more strongly than the views of James warranted. The influence which they exerted on Peter, and even on Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, would rather seem to indicate that their words were regarded as those of James, who, when he declared himself against συνεσθίειν μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν ,[12] did not contradict his view expressed in the convention at Jerusalem. It is clear from Act_21:17-26 that James attached great importance to the point that every ἀποστασία of the Jews from Moses should be avoided, and that the Gentile Christians should remain by that fourfold ἈΠΈΧΕΣΘΑΙ ; he even demanded from Paul a proof that he had not ceased to observe the law ( ΤῸΝ ΝΌΜΟΝ ΦΥΛΆΣΣΕΙΝ ). From the fact that Paul complied with this demand, it follows not only that he was not hostilely opposed to the view of James, but that he respected it, and recognised in it nothing essentially opposed to his own principles. He could not have done so had James insisted on the observance of the law in the same sense as did the Judaizing Christians, against whom Paul so often and so decidedly contended. According to James, the law was not a necessary means of justification along with and in addition to faith, but the rule of life appointed by God to the people of Israel, according to which believing Israel has to conform in the free obedience of faith. Thus James was and continued to be in his faith in Christ a true Jew, without, however, denying that Christianity was not only the glorification of Judaism, but also that by it the blessing promised to Israel was imparted to the Gentiles without their being subject to the law of Israel.[13] The position of James toward the Mosaic law was accordingly different from that of Paul. For whilst the latter was conscious that in Christ he was dead to the law ( μὴ ὢν ὑπὸ νόμον , 1Co_9:20), so that he felt himself at liberty to be Ὧς ἸΟΥΔΑῖΟς to the Jews but Ὡς ἌΝΟΜΟς to the ἈΝΌΜΟΙς , though always ἜΝΝΟΜΟς ΧΡΙΣΤῷ , the former esteemed it to be a sacred duty in Christ to observe the law which God had given to His people through Moses.[14] In this legal obedience James showed such a strict conscientiousness, that even by the Jews he received the name of “the Just.” And considering this his peculiar character, it is not at all to be wondered at that the Judaistic Christians leant chiefly on him, and that Judaistic tradition imparted additional features to his portrait, by which he appeared as the ideal of Jewish holiness. According to the description of Hegesippus (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23), he was by birth a Nazarite, he led an ascetic life, he never anointed with oil nor used the bath, he never wore woollen but linen clothes, he was permitted to enter into the sanctuary, and he prayed constantly on his knees for the forgiveness of the people, and continued in his devotions so long that his knees became hard as camels’. This description may contain a few genuine traits, yet, as will be generally admitted, it cannot be acquitted of “suspicious exaggeration” (Lange). The statements of the Ebionites proceed further; in the Clementines, James is raised above all the apostles, and exalted to the episcopacy of all Christendom; indeed, according to Epiphanius (Haeres. xxx. 16), his ascension to heaven was a matter of narration; and Epiphanius himself thinks that he not only went yearly into the holy of holies, but that he also wore the diadem of the high priest.
[10] This event, according to the united testimony of the Synoptists, occurred after the choice of the Twelve; Mark makes it to follow directly upon it. In ἔλεγον γάρ , ver. 21, Lange finds an “artifice” on the part of those belonging to Jesus to rescue Him from the death which threatened Him (!).—Meyer supplies to ἐξῆλθον . “from Nazareth;” but it is probable that the family at this time dwelt no longer in Nazareth, but in Capernaum; for in Mar_6:3 the inhabitants of Nazareth say only of the sisters, but not of His mother and brothers, that they dwelt with them (comp. also Mat_13:55).
[11] Lange also, it is true, finds in the demand of the brothers a sign of unbelief, but of the unbelief of an enthusiasm which had not yet risen to self-sacrifice!
[12] If Paul by τὰ ἔθνη (Gal_2:12) means not Gentiles, but, as is certainly the usual view, Gentile Christians, we must suppose, with Wieseler (Komm. über d. Br. an d. Gal.), that the Gentile Christians at Antioch no longer kept the rules established at Jerusalem, otherwise Peter would have had no reason to separate himself from them at their meals.—Yet it is doubtful if we are justified in assuming this, as the presupposed fact is not in the least indicated by Paul.
[13] Weiss is wrong when he maintains (in the dissertation “James and Paul” in the deutsche Ztschr. f. christl. Wissenschaft, 5th year, 1854, No. 51) that James was a stranger to the distinction between the fulfilment of the law from a motive of duty and from the impulse of a new principle, and that in this he was in opposition to Paul; that while, according to the latter, the law leads to sin and death, according to the view of James it produces righteousness and deliverance from death, and that he cherishes the idea, supposed by Weiss to be contained in the O. T., that he only can be declared righteous by God who is actually perfectly righteous. In opposition to the first two positions it is to be urged, that James in chap. 2 speaks not of the O. T. law as such, but of the N. T. νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας ; and against the third position, that the O. T. recognises distinctly a forgiveness of sins, as well as that James regards δικαιοῦσθαι ἐξ ἔργων as a work of grace, since he does not deny the existence of sin among true believers, and in Jam_2:11 presupposes that it is only possible to stand in the judgment inasmuch as that judgment is merciful. It is to be observed that Weiss advances the same view of James in his bibl. Theologie.
[14] Paul and James before their conversion to Christ certainly occupied different positions with regard to the law. The former regarded it—conformably to his Pharisaism—as the means of procuring righteousness, and accordingly in his strivings he experienced it as a ζυγός which weighed him down; James, on the other hand, was certainly one of those pious persons to whom, in the faith of the covenant which God made with His people, the law, as the witness of this covenant, was the word of divine love, and therefore in it he had found his joy and consolation (comp. Psa_119:92; Psa_19:8-11). Paul found his peace, when he recognised himself in Christ free from the law; James, when he experienced in Christ strength to obey the law.