JO -J w i THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | I <^ Princeton, N. J. ^^#^^^*#<^=^^o^^^^c^>&^^.^^^^^.Ar '^' HISTORY PLANTING AND TRAINING CHRISTIAN CHURCH APOSTLES. BY DR AUGUSTUS NEANDER, ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN, CONSISTORIAL COUNSELLOR, &C. T3AXSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, BY J. E. RYLAND. VOL. II. EDINBURGH : THOMAS CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCXLII. Do Deo homo dixit et quidera inspiratus a Deo sed tamcn homo. ACGUSTINVS. It is a rule of infinite importance, that the Scriptures always speak not ad rem in seipsa, sed quoad hominem. It is a moral and religious, not a physical revelation, and in order to render us good moral ageuts, not accu- rate natural speculators— to make us know oiurselves and our relations both present and future; not to make us knowing in nature without indastry or intellectual exercitation. Marginal Note by S. T. CoiEBiDGE, {in a copy 0/ Stilling fleet's Origines Sacrce. 4th ed. 4to, 1G75.) ^^^j^QQl^^^'^ CONTENTS. BOOK IV. A REVIEW OF THE LABOURS OF JAMES AND PETER DURING THIS PERIOD. CHAPTER I. THE CHARACTER OF JAMES REMARKS ON HIS EPISTLE. Whether he was a brother or only a near relation of the Lord, and identical with the apostle ? Dr Schneclc- enburger's hypothesis that there was only one James, examined, ..... 1-7 James distinguished by the strictness of his life ; hence called The Just... the testimony of Hegesippus, 7-10 His epistle important for illustrating the state of the Jewish-Christian churches, . . . 10 Reasons for believing that it was not written with a re- ference to Paul's doctrinal views, . . 10-17 The epistle addressed to churches consisting entirely or chiefly of Jewish believers, mostly poor, . 17-1'.) The Christian doctrines imperfectly developed in it. . . its importance in connection with the other writings of the New Testament, . . . 20-21 The martyrdom of James, . . . .22 VOL. II. b VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. THE APOSTLE PETER. His parentage. . .natural character... call to the apostle- ship, ...... 24-28 His labours in propagating the gospel, . . 29 His first epistle, . . . . 30-32 Probable spuriousness of the second epistle, . 33 Traditions respecting Peter's martyrdom at Rome, 34-41 BOOK V. THE APOSTLE JOHN AND HIS MINISTRY AS THE CLOSING POINT OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. llis education. . .maternal influence. . .early piety. . .gene- ral character. ..contemplative yet ardent... his piety moulded by personal intercourse ^rith the Saviour, 42-40 His labours among the churches in Lesser Asia, 47, 48 lilrrors prevalent in these churches, practical and theo- retical... especially the Judaizing...the Antimonian, the anti-judaizing Gnostic, and the Cerinthian, 4U-54 Tradition of John's banishment to Patmos... authorship of tlie apocalypse, .... 55-GO John's writings. . .their general character... his gospel, 61-G4 His first epistle, ..... 64-70 His second epistle... injunctions respecting intercourse M'ith false teachers, .... 70-71 His third epistle... Diotrephes, . . . 72-7:J Traditions respecting John's labours preserved by Cle- mens Alexandrinus and Jerome... the close of the apostolic age, ..... 74-7(J CONTENTS. BOOK VI. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE. The living unity of the doctrine of Christ combined ■with a variety in the forms of its representation... three leading varieties... the Pauline, the Jacobean (xnth. the intermediate Petrine) and the Johannean, CHAPTER I. THE PAULINE DOCTRINE. 1. The connection and contrast of Paul's earlier and la- ter standing-point are contained in the ideas of ^/««/e- ffuvn and vofios, which form the central point of his doctrine, ..... 7;i The ^ixuioa-vvTi of his earlier standing-point depended on the observance of the Mosaic 1 aw (va^w/x*))... the Chris- tian ^izMO(ri»»i and l^Ci)*i correlative ideas, . liO The fundamental principle of his late standing-point. . . No righteousness by the works of the law available before God... no essential distinction between the ri- tual and moral i^yx vof^ou. The idea of the law as a unity ; an outward rule of action, requiring not ef- fecting obedience... applicable to the universal laAvof conscience, . . . . , {;i \Yorks the marks of the state of the disposition ; but the law can effect no change in the disposition... hence i^yot. vofx,ov are set in contrast to t^ya. uyc/Stx. (Eph. ii. 10), ..... 82 The law not deficient as a standard of duty, H'A 2. The Central-point of the Pauline anthropology. . .hu- man nature in opposition to the law. ill CONTENTS. '/. The nature of sin. ffu^^. ..ffa^xiKo;...The disunion in human nature not necessary... but voluntary and blameworthy, 84 (TK^xixos does not import merely the predominance of the senses, or sensual appetite... sometimes equi- valent to ■4'uxi'cos, in opposition to the Ss/ov tvsv^,k; but sometimes the body as the organ of sinful ten- dencies, . . . . . 85, 86 b. Origin of sin and death. The consciousness of sin and of the need of re- demption presupposed as a universal fact ; hence the origin of sin seldom adverted to, but the idea of an original state of perfection, and the voluntary fall of the first man, lies at the basis of Paul's doctrine, 87^ 88 The first man not the representative of human nature generally... The origin of sinful desire from apparent guiltlessness (Rom, vii, 9) not referribleto Adam, 80 According to Rom. v, 12, the sinful direction of the will was produced by Adam's voluntary act, from original sinlessness, and continues itself in the whole development of the race, . . 90-91 Through sin, death comes upon all men, not by an essential change in the physical organization of man, but in man's view of death. . .death appears not as a step in the development of life, but as a conse- quence of the withdrawment of the divine life through sin, . . . • . 92, 93 c. Suppression by sin of the natural revelation of God. The original affinity to God not destroyed but suppressed... The use of the works of creation in ' awakening the religious sentiment... Religious sus- ceptibility injured by sin... the origin of idolatry... deterioration of man's moral nature, yet the power of convenience not destroyed, . . 93-9(5 tl. The state of disunion. Two contending principles in human nature... spirit and flesh... states of bondage... either uncon- COXTENTS. -. IX scions, living without law, or conscious, living un- der the law. ..Rom. vii. a delineation of both these states, taken from Paul's own experience, but appli- cable to all mankind, . . . 97-100 ^1 Preparatives for Redemption. . .Judaism and Heathen- ism, But this view inadequate and untenable. . .the sense of the wi-ath of God has an objective basis. . .a revela- tion of the divine holiness, . . . 121 The distinction between ^k^ktu and u(pirtt, 122, 12:§ The divine holiness revealed in Christ in a two- fold manner, . . . . 124, 125 h. ctTToXuT^Mfft; and ffcoT'/i^i'», freedom from guilt and punishment; in a wider sense as effected objectively by Christ, and realized in individuals in a more li- mited sense, . . . . . 12(5 The Pauline 'htKutaxrn, like the Jewish, inseparable from a participation in all the privileges of the kingdom of God... but only to be obtained through fellowship with Christ, the only perfect 'htKMos, Hence ^tKociutris the induction of a believer in Christ into the relation of a huMos ; hxenairvv» the appropria- tion of Christ's righteousness as the objective ground of faith, as well as the subjective principle of life; hence its necessarily supposed depai'ture from a life of sin, and entrance into the holy life of Christ, 128, 127 CONTENTS. XI 5. The Appropriation of Salvation by Faith. a. The nature of Faith. The reception of divine revelation by an internal determination of the will... in this respect, and not in reference to the object, Abraham was a pattern of the righteousness that is by faith ; Rom. iv. 19, 128 Christian faith modified by its object... a twofold reference to Christ as crucified and risen, . 120 b, 'rifTt; the peculiarity of the Christian standing- point, in distinction from the Jewish legal. The law requires every thing which faith already contains ; Rom. X. 5, . . . 130,131 The law is in itself a deadly letter... the gospel a life-giving spirit. ..In the believer, the law is not an object merely of knowledge but of efficient love, 132 The law is so far abrogated for believers, that their hxeuoirvvn and ?«»} are independent of it through faith, from which l^yix, ayaBa. spontaneously proceed, 133 Paul's appeals to the voj^o; are only to the outward Mosaic law as an expression of the eternal law of God, .134 Hence the term vof^a; denotes in a more general sense what is common to both Judaism and Chris- tianity ; in the one to an outward, in the other to an inward law, .... 135, 13h' Under the Jewish theocracy, the service was ex- ternal, h TTuXKioTriTi y^u.fji,fji,xTos -..nnder the Gospel in- ternal, £v xKivoTvri 'mi>fjt,o(.To;...its louXtiK identical with vtoBiiria.; the worship of the former cru^Kixfi, of the latter 'prnvfji.a.rix.vi ; in the one was »«t« ctk^xu, in the other iv Kv^iu, .... 137, 138 6. The New Life proceeding from Faith. a. The transformation of the sinful nature by the Di- vine ; accomplished gradually ; the ffo,^^ opposed not merely by the higher nature of man but by the Spi- rit of Christ (•Tvivfji.tt. Kyiov), . . . 139 All the mental and bodily powers become organs L CONTENTS. of grace... The Spirit of Christ pervades all the pe- culiar talents of individuals ; hence charisms, 140, 141 Objective justification as an unchangeable ground of confidence, distinguished from subjective sancti- fication, (vvhich is often an uncertain ground, . 142 '. The principles of the new life — Faith, Love, Hope. ^nrrti sometimes denotes the whole extent of Chris- tian ability... ^t/varoj rri Tiffru relates particularly to the judgment formed by the Christian of outward things... hence proceeds Christian freedom, which is shewn even in submitting to outward restraints, 143-147 Love the natural effect of faith. . .By the revelation of the love of God in redemption, love to him is con- tinually kindled, .... 148 Faith and love partly relate to the kingdom of God as present, but they have also a marked rela- tion to the future, for the new life is in a state of constant progression, it longs after the perfect re- velation of the children of God, . . 149-152 Hence hope necessarily belongs to faith and love ...Perseverance in the work of faith is the practical side of hope, . . . . 152,153 The knowledge of divine things proceeds from faith... proceeds from the spiritual life... depends on the increase of love... being necessarily defective in the present state is connected with the hope of per- fect intuition, . . . . . 154 Love the greatest of the three, because it alone abides for ever; 1 Cor. xiii. 13, . . 155, 156 Special Christian virtues proceeding from Faith, Love, and Hope. a. rKvitvo(p^o(rvvn distinguishes the Christian from the Heathen view of the world ; only partial even on the Jewish standing-point ; though its direct rela- tion is to God alone, yet its effects are, opposition to all self-exaltation, and moderation towards others, 157-159 /J. traxp^offwn sober-mindedness in conflict with the world, 2 Tim. i. 7; and in self-estimation, Rom. xii. 3, ...... 160 CONTENTS. Xlll y. (Topcc. . .The understanding under the influence of faith. . ."vvisdom and prudence, . , . 161 Analogy to the cardinal virtues of heathen philo- sophers. . .Love occupies the place of ^i»aio.(po; is understood only in a laxer sense, the title of " Bro- ther of the Lord" proves nothing against the identity of the person; for, from compai'ing Matt, xxvii. 56; xxviii. l,Mark XV. 40, with John xix. 25, it is evident that James the apos- tle, son of Alpheus or Cleopas (both names derived from the Hebrev,' ifj^n), was really a sister's son of Mary the mother of Jesus. As so near a relation of Jesus, he might accord- ingly be distinguished from the other apostles by the title of a brother of the Lord. But then it is asked, why was he not rather distinguished by the strictly appropriate name of avi-4'toi ? And if at that time, there were persons in existence who might with strict propriety be called " Brothers of the Lord,'' is it not so much the less probable, that this name in an improper sense would be applied to him ? Nevertheless, we may suppose, that in common discourse — since it was not a point of consequence to mark definitely the degree of kin between Jesus and this James, but only to represent him THE APOSTLE JAMES. 6 If we put iogether all that is handed down to us in the New Testament, and in other historical records, the in general terms as enjoying the honour of near relationship to the Lord, — it had become customary to designate him simply a brother of the Lord, especially among the Judaizing Chris- tians, by whom such distinctions of earthly affinity would be most highly prized, and this might be still more easily ex- plained, if we admit with Schneckenburger, that after the death of Joseph (which took place at an early period), Mary removed to the house of her sister, the wife of Alpheus ; hence, it would be usual to designate her sons who lived from their childhood with Jesus, who had no other brothers, simply as the brethren of Jesus. Thus, then, this James would be one of the brethren of Jesus who are named in Matth. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3. Among these we find a Joses^ wlio, in Matth. xxvii. 56, is distinguished as the brother of James, and a Judas ; and if we explain the surname 'Ja.x&jficv given to the apostle Judas, on comparing it with the Epistle of Jude, V. 1, by supplying the word ct^i>.(pas (which cannot be assumed as absolutely certain), we shall also again find in him a brother of the apostle James. And the one named Simon among these brethren, we may perhaps find again in the list of the apostles, as all three are named together in Acts i. 13. According to that supposition, it would be no longer surprising that the brethren of Christ are often men- tioned in connection with his mother ; and yet from that cir- cumstance no evidence can be deduced that would prove them to be in a strict sense his brethren. "We must then assume with Schneckenburger, that Avhen Matthew (xiii, 55) after the mention of the twelve apostles, distinguishes the brethren of Jesus from them, it proceeded from the want of chronological exactness in his mode of narration. But if several of the so-called brethren of Jesus were among the apostles, still the manner in which the former are distinguished from the latter in Acts i. 14, is remarkable. Besides, according to the account in Mark iii. 31, a state of mind towards Jesus is supposed to exist in these brethren, which could not be attributed to the apostles, and yet it ap- pears from comparing this account with the parallel pas- sages in Matt. xii. and Luke viii, that this incident must be placed after the choice of the twelve apostles. This vicAv is confirmed by the disposition manifested by these brethren of Christ, even in the last half year before his sufferings. All this taken together, must decide us in favour of the supposi- tion, that the brethren of Jesus, commonly mentioned in con- 4 TtlE APOSTLE JAMES. most probable result of the whole is, that this James was one of the brethren of Christ, of whom we have spoken nection with Mary the mother of Jesus, are to be altogether distinguished from the apostles, and therefore they must be considered as the brethren of Jesus in a stricter sense, either as the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, or the later born sons of Joseph and Mary, which from Matt. i. 25, is most probable. That Christ when dying said to John, that from that time he should treat Mary as his mother, can at all events oppose only the supposition, that these brethren were the offspring of Joseph and Mary, and not the supposition that they were the step-sons of Mary. But even against the first supposition, this objection is not decisive ; for if these brethren of Jesus still continued estranged from him in their disposition, we can at once perceive why at his death he com- mended his mother to his beloved disciple John. It may in- deed appear surprising, that these brethren of Christ, ac- coi'ding to Matthew xiii. 55, bore the same names as their cousins, but this can be affirmed with certainty only of two, and as the two sisters had one name, it might happen, owing to particular circumstances, that one son of each was named alike. But from what has been said, it by no means follows, that the James who is distinguished in the New Testament as a brother of the Lord, was one of these brethren of Christ in a stricter sense. It might still be consistent with that fact, that this James was to be distinguished from the James Avho was the actual brother of the Lord, and, as a cousin of Christ who was honoured with this name, was to be held as identi- cal with the apostle, although in this case it is less probable that when an actual brother of Jesus bore the name of James , the cousin should be honoured with the same title, instead of being distinguished by the epithet a.vi-^to? from that other James, to whom the surname of Brother of the Lord would in strictest propriety be given. If we are disposed to examine the passages in the Pauline epistles which contain a particular reference to this point, there are two especially deserving of notice. As to the pas- sage in 1 Cor. ix. 5, " xki oi y.otVoi a.-roffroXoi KUi ot uhiX^oi rov yvoiav^'' it cannot be proved from these Avords that the bre- thren of the Lord were distinct from the apostles, for they may be supposed to mean, that Paul, by " ilie other ajwstles,'^ understood those who could not claim such a relationship to the Lord, and that he particularly distinguishes those who were brethren of the Lord from the other apostles, because, THE APOSTLE JAMES. 5 in our " Life of Jesus," p. 40. Thus it appears how very much the course of his rehgious development, was dis- in virtue of that relationship, they stood high in the opinion of the party with whom he had here to do. That he names Peter immediately after, rather favours the notion that the brethren of the Lord, as well as Peter, belonged to the number of the apostles. Yet this is not a decisive proof, for it would sure- ly be possible that, although the brethren of the Lord did not belong to the apostles, Paul might mention them in this connection, because they, or some of them, were held in equal estimation by the Jewish Christians of Palestine; and as, along with them, Peter was most highly respected, he is par- ticularly mentioned at the same time. It is indeed possible, that Paul here uses the term apostle, not in the strictest sense, but in a wider meaning, as in Rom. xvi. 7 ; and so much the more, since he afterwards mentions Barnabas, to whom the name of an apostle could be applied only in that more general acceptation of the term. The second important passage is Gal. i. 19, where Paul, after speaking of his con- ference with the apostle Peter at Jerusalem, adds, that he had seen no other of the apostles, " save James the Lord's brother," Yet, from this passage, it cannot be so certainly inferred as Dr Schneckenburger thinks, that the James here named was one of the apostles. The state of the case may be conceived to have been thus : Paul had originally, in his thoughts, only a negative position, he had seen no other apostle but Peter at Jerusalem. But as it afterwards oc- curred to him, that he had seen at Jerusalem James the bro- ther of the Lord, Avho, though no apostle, was held in apos- tolic estimation by the Judaizers, on this account he added, by way of limitation, a reference to James. We must there- fore add to the h fj^n, a complementary idea allied to that of cfTToffToXoi ; on a construction of this kind, see Winer, p. 517. It may be asked whether Paul would have expressed himself in this manner, if he had reckoned James in the stricter sense among the apostles ? Would he have expressed the negation so universally, and, after he had so expressed it, have here first introduced the limitation, if from the first he had thought of saying that he saw none of the apostles excepting two. When Schneckenburger, from the words in Acts ix. 27, infers that Paul must at that time have conferred with at least two apostles at Jerusalem, he attaches greater weight than can be allowed with certainty to single expressions in this short narrative. Yet, if we compare on this point the oldest ecclesiastical THE APOSTLE JAIMES. ting-iiished from that of the apostle Paul. The latter, diirino' the life of Christ on earth, was at a distance from traditions, the comparison of the account in the gospel of the Hebrews (see Hieronym. de V. I. c. ii.) with 1 Cor. xv. 7 •"''appears to favour the identity of the one James, for in that gospel it is said that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared to James the Just, the brother of the Lord, But in the pas- sage in the Epistle to the Corinthians, the same James seems to be mentioned as one of the twelve apostles. Still we find here nothing absolutely certain, for it cannot be shewn that the reference in that gospel is to the same appearance of Christ as in the epistle. And if it be assumed that James, the brother of the Lord, was then held in such great esteem, that when this name was mentioned only one individual would be genei-ally thought of, it is not perfectly clear, from his being brought forward in this connection, that he was reckoned by Paul among the apostles. Now, in reference to the tradition of Hegesippus, in Euseb. ii. 23, when he says that James the brother of the Lord undertook with the apos- tles, fAiTK Tuv uToarokMv, the guidance of the church at Jerusa- lem, it is most natural to suppose that he means to distin- guish James from the apostles, otherwise he would have said f/,iTa Tu» koivuv, although we would not consider the other in- terpretation as impossible, especially in writers of this class, in whom we do not look for great precision in their mode of expression. Also the whole narrative of Hegesippus leads lis to believe, that he considered James as distinct from the apostles ; for although this representation bears upon it, at all events, marks of internal improbability, yet it would not appear altogether irrational, on the supposition that this James was an apostle appointed by Christ himself. But we must compare with this passage the words of Hegesippus in EuSGb. iv. 22, f^iroc to f^oc^ru^yja-Ki 'loix&>(iov tov ^txectov, a; km o Kv^io; I'Ti TOO ccvTui Xoyiu, "^ocXtv o Ix. 3-siev uLtou ^vfx-iuv o tou x.kwra xuB-itrruTUi 'iTTiffKO'To;, ov •pr^oi^ivro vavTii ovtu. eivt^^tav tov kv^iov liVTi^ov. If we understand by these woi'ds, that this Simeon vv^as called the second nephew in relation to the aforemen- tioned James the Just, as the first nephew of the Lord, it Avould follow that that James, as a nephew of the Lord, is called his brother. Yet if another interpretation is possible, according to which Hegesippus agrees with himself, in re- ference to the words before quoted, such an interpretation must be readily preferred. And this interpretation is that which agrees best with the words in their existing position. For, since James is the principal subject in the first half of THE APOSTLE JAMES. 7 ail personal outward communication with him, and learnt to know him first by spiritual communication. James, on the contrary, stood in the closest family relation to the Redeemer, and from the first was present with him dur- incr the whole of his earthly development ; but it was ex- actly this circumstance which contributed to his being more slow to recognise in the son of man, the Son of God ; and while he clave only to the earthly appearance, he was prevented from penetrating through the shell to the substance. Paul, by a violefit crisis, made the tran- sition from the most vehement and unsparing opposition to the gospel, to the most zealous advocacy of it. James gradually advanced from a Judaism of great earnestness knd depth, which blended with a faith that constantly became more decisive in Jesus as the Messiah, to Chris- tianity as the glorification and fulfilling of the law. There is probably some truth in what is narrated by the Christian historian Hegesippus, that this James led from childhood the life of a Nazarene. If we consider what an impression the appearances at and after the birth the sentence, the auroZ must refer to him. Cleopas, accord- ingly, is called the uncle of James, and his son Simeon cah- not therefore be the brother of James, but is his cousin ; as Cleopas (= Alpheus) is the uncle of Jesus, (and, according to Hegesippus in Euseb. iii. 11, both on the side of Joseph as well as of Mary), Simeon the cousin of Jesus and the cousin of James, which again favours the opinion that they were brothers. But Hegesippus might call this Simeon a second nephew, since he looked upon the apostle James, the son of Alpheus, who was no longer living, as the first nephew. "We might also insert a stop after kv^uv, and connect hvnoov with v^os^svTo ; by this construction, mention would be made of only one cousin of the Lord, as the successor of his bro- ther, as the second overseer of the church. But the position of the words is very much against this construction. Cer- tainly the testimony of Hegesippus must have great weight, on account of his high antiquity, his descent, and his con- nection with the Jews of Palestine. But it is undeniable, if we compare the two passages from the Hypotyposeis of Clement, quoted by Eusebius, ii. 1, that he distinguishes James, who bore the surname of the Just, as an apostle in tlie stricter sense of the word. 8 THE APOSTLE JAMES. of Christ, and the conviction that the first-born son of Mary was destined to be the Messiah — must have left on the minds of his parents, it may be easily explained how they Pelt themselves compelled to dedicate their first-born son James,"* to the service of Jehovah in strict abstinence for the whole of his life. To this also it might be owing, that the freer mode of living which Christ practised with his disciples was less congenial to him ; and from his strict, legal, Jewish standing-point he could not comprehend the new spirit which revealed itself in Christ's words ; many of these must have appeared to him as " hard sayings." Proceeding from the common Jewish standing-point, he expected that Jesus, if he were the Messiah, would verify himself to be such in the presence of the people by signs that would compel the univei^al recognition of his claims, by the establishment of a visible kingdom in earthly glory. By the impression of Christ's ministiy he became indeed excited to believe, but the power of early habit and prejudice always counteracted that impression, and he found himself in a state of indecision from which he could not at once free himself. Only half a year before the last sufferings of Christ we find him in this vacillating condition, for John does not in this respect distinguish him from the other brethren of Jesus, with whom this was certainly the case ; John vii. 5. But after the as- cension of Christ, he appears as a decided and zealous member of the company of disciples ; Acts i. 13. We see how import,ant the Saviour deemed it to produce such a faith in him by his honouring him with a special ap- pearance after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), whether this was occasioned or not, by his having expressed doubts like Thomas.f This James obtained constantly increas- ing respect in the church at Jerusalem. * His being described by the appellation of the son, in- dicates that he was the eldest. t The narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Leben Jesu, p. 720), is not an authority of sufficient credit to allow of our followinpf it here. It tells us that James, after par- talcing of the Last Supper with Christ, made a vow that he would not again taste food till he had seen him risen from THE APOSTLE JAMES. 9 Every feature of his character which we can gather from the Acts, from Josephus,* and from the traditions of Hegesippus in Eusebiusf, well agrees with the image of him presented in the epistle that bears his name. By his strict pious hfe, which agi'eed with the Jewish no- tions of legal piety, he won the universal veneration, not only of the believers among the Jews, but also of the bet- ter disposed among his countrymen generally : on this account, he was distinguished by the surname of the Just, p'*^!^? ^iKccios ; and, if we may credit the account of Hegesippus, he was viewed as one of those men of dis- tingniished and commanding excellence who set themselves against the corruptions of their age, and hence was termed the bulwark of the people4 According to the representa- tions of this writer, he must have led a life after the man- ner of the strictest ascetics among the Jews. The conse- cration of his childhood had already introduced him to such a mode of life, and we might suppose, that he had already won by it peculiar respect among the Jews, if it were not surprising that no trace can be found of it in the gospels, no marks of special distinction awarded to the dead ; that Christ appeared to him as the Risen One, and said, ." Now eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead." AVe must certainly consider how important it was for the wavering-minded James, who, in his epistle, has so vividly described the unhappiness of such a state (i. 5), to attain to the certainty on this subject, which such an occur- rence would give him, and which such a vow led him to ex- pect. But not only is the work of the Jewish Christian who bestowed so much pains in embellishing the history of James, not a credible source of information in itself, but there is also a palpable contradiction in the chronology of the his- tory of the resurrection between this narrative and Paul's account. * Joseph. Archseol. xx. 9. t Hist. Eccles. ii. 23. X Perhaps Q^ ^^V or dJ'l> y^, which comes nearer the phraseology of Hegesippus ; unless, which is indeed less probable, we read, with Fuller, 0^7 l^ , which Hegesippus translates !T£^/o;^>j tou koiov. 10 THE APOSTLE JAMES. him by liis bretliren. At all events, he might afterwards avail himself of this ascetic strictness as a means of at- tracting the attention of the multitude to his person, and thereby to the doctrine he pubhshed. This mode of life considered in itself, provided its value was not rated too high, was by no means unchristian. What Hegesippus narrates of him perfectly suits his character, that he fre- quently prostrated himself on his knees in the Temple, calling upon God to forgive the sins of his people, (pro- bably having a special reference to the forgiveness of their sins against the Messiah), — ^thatthe divine judgments on the unbelievers might be averted, — and that they might be led to repentance and faith, and thus to a participa- tion of the kingdom of the glorified Messiah. But some important doubts may be raised against the credibility of this account of Hegesippus, taken in its full extent. That Ebionite party among whom an ascetic, theosophic tendency prevailed, and who circulated apo- cryphal writings under the name of James, had probably formed an ideal conception of his character in harmony w^ith their own peculiarities, and Hegesippus might mis- take the image delineated in their traditions for an his- torical reality. The Epistle of James by no means bears decided marks of such a tendency, for every thing which has been supposed to be of this kind may very pro- perly be referred to the simple Christian renunciation of the world, such as has its seat in the disposition. If the Jewish love of gain is here spoken against, if the earthly- mindedness of the rich, the homage paid to this class and the contempt of the poor, is condemned, and it is declared that the gospel has found the most ready access to the latter, and exalted them to the highest dignity, yet it by no means follows, that the author of this epistle en- tirely condemned, like the Ebionites, all possession what- ever of earthly goods. This epistle is especially important, not only for illus- trating the character of James, but also for giving us an insight into the state of the Christian churches which were formed from Judaism, and unmixed with Christians of Gentile descent. According to an opinion very gene- THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 11 rally prevalent from ancient times, we should be led to believe that the peculiar doctrinal system of the apostle Paul had already been formed and disseminated when this epistle was written, and that those churches particularly to whom it was addressed, had been affected by the in- fluence of this Pauline system. The opinion we refer to is, that James in this Epistle either combated the Paul- ine doctrine of justification by faith in and for itself, or a misunderstanding and an erroneous application of it. And it would not be difficult to support this opinion by many isolated passages in the epistle taken alone, with- out a reference to their connection with the whole :* for it seems as if the express reference to the Pauline for- mula of the justification to be obtained by faith alone, and to which works can contribute nothing, could not be mistaken ; especially as the same examples of faith as those mentioned by Paul, namely those of Abraham and Sarah, are adduced. But this opinion, though plausible at first sight, if we examine more closely the relation of particular passages to the whole tenor of the epistle, will soon appear untenable. The error in reference to faith which James combats in this epistle, is certainly not one al- together isolated : but it appears as an offset proceeding with many others from the root of one fixlse principle : and this principle is quite distinct from that which would admit of an application, whether correct or incorrect, of the Pauline doctrine. It was the tendency of the Jewish spirit, refusing to acknowledge the life of religion as seat- * We wish to remark in passing, that among those who have thought that they have detected a contradiction between James and Paul in the doctrine of justification, is the cele- brated patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris of Constantinople, who was led to the opinion by reading the epistle. It also struck him that the name of Christ is scarcely mentioned above once or twice, and then coldly (anzi del nonio di Jesu Christo a pena fa mentione una o due volte efreddamente); that the mysteries of the incarnation of the Son of God and of redemption are not treated of, but only morality {solo a la moralita attende) ; see Letter vii. in Lettres Anecdotes de CyrilU Lucar. Am- sterdam^ 1718, p. 85. 12 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. ed in the disposition, every where taking up the mere dead form, the appearance instead of the reahty, in reli- gion ; this tendency, which substituted a lifeless arrogant acquaintance with the letter for the genuine wisdom in- separable from the divine life — which prided itself in an inoperative knowledge of the law, without paying any at- tention to the practice of the law — which placed devo- tion in outward ceremonies, and neglected that devotion which shews itself in works of love — which contented it- self with the verbal expression of love, instead of proving it by works ; it was the same tendency of the Jewish mind estranged from the spirit and life of religion, which, as it laid an undue value on the opus operatum of out- ward religious acts, so also on the opus operatum of a faith in the one Jehovah and in the Messiah, which left the disposition unchanged ; — and which presumed that by such a faith, the Jew was sufficiently distinguished from the sinful race of the Gentiles, and was justified be- fore Grod even though the conduct of the life was in con- tradiction to the requirements of faith. Thus we find here one branch of that practical fundamental error which chiefly prevailed among these Jewish Christians, whom James combats in the whole of the epistle, even where faith is not the immediate subject of discourse. It was the erroneous tendency, which belonged to those that commonly prevailed among the great mass of the Jews, and which had found its way also among those Christians in whose minds the gospel had not effected a complete transformation, but whose Jewish spirit had only con- nected itself with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.* (See "^ That JeAvish mode of thinking which Justin Martyr de- scribes , in Dial. c. Tniph. Jud. fol. 370, ed. Colon. — " ui vfAils a.<7ra.ra.Ti locurous xcci ocXXoi rtvig vfcTv ofiotoi kktk tovto (in this respect Jewish-minded Christians), ol Xiyovvtv, an »ay a.fx,(x.^ra- Xoi uiri, B-iav ds yivutrxovinv, oh f/.'/i Xoyia^'/irixi oiV7o7; xv^io; »ij:.ot.^Tiu.v. That mode of thinking which is found in the Clementine homilies, according to which faith in one God (ro Tti; [/.om^x"^^ xccXov) has such great magical power, that the ■^vp(^'/i fAova^x."^*>> even while living in vice, had this advantage before idolaters, that it could not perish, but through purifying punishments THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 13 above, vol. i. p. 25, and my Church History, vol. i. p. 47.) But as to the Paulme doctrme of justification by ftiith, whether correctly or incorrectly understood and applied, we cannot suppose its influence to be possible in churches of this class, and hence argumentation against it from the standing-point of James is utterly inconceivable.* As the superscription and contents of his epistle inform us, it was manifestly addressed only to churches that were composed entirely of Jewish Christians. But such persons were least of all disposed to attach themselves particularly to Paul, and least of all disposed and fitted to aoree to the Pauline doctrine, which presented the most direct opposition to their customary mode of think- ino-. It was precisely from persons of this stamp that the intemperate fanatical outcry was raised against this form of Christian doctrine, as if, by depending on grace, men were made secure in sin, or that they were would at last attain to salvation ; see Horn. iii. c. 6. The idea of faith, which, from an entirely different source than from a misunderstanding of Paul, found entrance afterwards among Christians themselves, and to which a Marcion di- rectly opposed the Pauline idea of faith. Against such per- versions Paul warned the churches, both by word of mouth and in writing, when he so impressively charged it upon them that their renunciation of heathenism was nugatory, and could not contribute to their participation of the kingdom of God, if they did not renounce their former sinful habits ; see Gal. V. 21. The Kivot Xoyoi, against which he warns the Ephesians. V. 6. * Dr Kern, in his essay on the Origin of the Epistle of James, in the Tubingen " Zeitschrift fur Theologie,^^ 1835, p. 25, on account of what is here asserted, charges me with a lyetitio pi-incipii ; but I cannot perceive with any justice. This charge might be brought home to me if I had assumed, without evidence, that this epistle was addressed to an un- mixed church ; or if I had passed altogether unnoticed the possible case which Kern considers as the actual (though he has abandoned it lately in the Introduction to his Commen- tary on this Epistle), that it was forged by a Jewish Christian in James's name, in order to controvert the Pauline doctrinal views which prevailed among the Gentile churches. 14 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. authorized in doing evil that good might come, Rom. iii. 8. In an entirely different quarter, from an Hellenic (gnos- tic) Antinomianism, which was also Antijudaism, arose at a later period an erroneous, practically destructive appropriation and application of the Pauline doctrine of justification, such as Paul himself thought it needful to guard against Dy anticipation; Rom. vi. 1 ; Gal. v. 13. And this later erroneous application of the idea of faith, which tended likewise to the injury of practical Chris- tianity, proceeded from an entirely different exposition of this idea than that presented by the one-sided di- rection of the Jewish spirit. It manifested itself rather as an Oriental Hellenic than as a Jewish spirit ; it was not the abstract idea of faith, but a one-sided contempla- tive or idealising tendency which deviated from the con- ception of faith as an animating principle of the will and a practical determination of the life. From what has been said, therefore, it is impossible to suppose, in an epistle addressed to such churches as these, any reference whatever to the Pauline formula of faith. And even admitting such a reference to exist, yet the notion that it consisted only in combating a 7nis- understanding of the Pauline doctrine, would be wholly untenable. For how can we suppose that James, if he did not intend to contradict Paul, but to maintain apos- tolic fellowship with him, and the knowledge of it in the churches, — would not, while combating an erroneous in- terpretation of the Pauline doctrine, at the same time expressly state the correct interpretation, and guard him- self against the appearance of opposition to Paul, espe- cially when an opposition might otherwise be so easily imao-ined by the Jewish Christians. But if we as- sumed that the intention of James was really to combat Paul's doctrine, this view would be at variance with what we know from history of the good understanding between the two apostles, and which cannot be set aside by the fact that some of Paul's opponents were those who appealed to the authority of James. See vol. i. p. 134. Another supposition still remains, that some one forged THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 15 the Epistle under James's name,* in order to give cur- rency in the church to a behef in an opposition between the two apostles, and this design would well suit the one- sided tendency of a Jewish Christian. But such a per- son would not only have expressed himself in a more decided manner than that James, of whose reputation he wished to avail himself; but he would have pointed out by name the individual (Paul) against whom he direct- ed liis attack, and would have expressed in stronger terms the censure of his doctrine. The subordinate place which in this case the confutation of the Pauline doc- ^ The assertion made by Kern, p. 72 of tlie essay before quoted, that, according to the principles of that early Chris- tian age, such a literary imposture would be irreproachable, I cannot acknowledge as well-founded, if expressed without limitation. There was indeed a certain standing-point, on which such a fraus pia, as we must always call it (Avhen a palpable falsehood was made use of to put certain sentiments in circulation,) would be allowed ; but that this was a gene- rally approved practice, appears to me an arbitrary assump- tion. We ought carefully to guard against supposing that to be an universally received principle, which was only the peculiarity of individual mental tendencies. There was a one-sided, theoretic, speculative standing-point, from which lax principles respecting veracity proceeded, as we have re- marked in Plato. It was connected with that aristocraticisra of antiquity, first overturned by the power of the gospel, which treated the mass of the people as unsusceptible of pure truth in religion, and hence justified the use of falsehood to serve as leading-strings for the •ttoWoi. As the reaction of such an earlier standing-point, we find this view in parties of kindred tendencies, such as the Alexandrian Jews, the Gnostics, the Platonisiug Alexandrian fathers. But from the first, a sounder practical Christian spirit combated this error, as we see in the instances of Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and Tertullian. The anti-gnostic tendency was also zealous for strict veracity. Now a similar practical tendency dis- tinguishes this epistle, in which I cannot find an Ebionitish anti-pauline standing-point. This spirit of strict veracity is shewn in what is said i-especting swearing. This epistle, indeed, wears altogether a different character from the Cle- mentines, Avhich show a decided party tendency and party bias. 16 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. trine occupies in relation to the whole of the epistle, cer- tainly does not agree with this hypothesis. Or, if it be said that the author of this epistle, who presented him- self under the mask of James, did not belong to the violent Judaizing opponents of Paul, but to a milder, more accommodating party, who only aimed at smoothing down the peculiarities of the Pauline scheme of doctrine, and so modifying it as to bring it nearer the Jewish-Chris- tian standing-point, and for that reason adopted a gen- tler method, and avoided the mention of Paul's name ; in this case, there would still have been a necessity of naming him, and explicitly stating that the writer of the epistle impugned not his doctrine in itself, but only a harsh and overstrained construction of it. And after all, the singular fact would remain unaccounted for, that the main object and design of the writer occupies only a subordinate place in relation to the whole of the epistle. What has given occasion to all these various supposi- tions, is the apparent allusion to expressions and illus- trations made use of by Paul. But is this allusion really so very evident ? Let us recollect, that the Pauline phraseology formed itself from Judaism, from the Jew- ish-G-reek diction — that it by no means created new modes of expression,* but often only appropriated the ancient Jewish terms, employed them in new combina- tions, appUed them to new contrasts, and animated them with a new spirit. Thus neither the term hKxiov(rB-cci in reference to God, nor the term '^la-ng was entirely new ; but both these terms and the ideas indicated by them * On the manner in which Paul employed phrases which were already in use among Jewish theologians, compare Dr Roeth's work, De Epistola ad Hehrceos, p. 121, &c., though I cannot agree with the author in what he attempts to prove ; for in the use which Paul makes of an existing form of dog- matic expression, he forms the most decided contrast to the Jewish meaning. But it appears fi'om this, how James, pro- ceeding from the Jewish standing-point, without any reference to the Pauline doctrine, would be led to the choice of such expi'essions. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 17 (and indeed, in reference to the first, the same idea the existence of which among the Jews Paul must have as- sumed in arguing with his Jewish opponents) had been long familiar to the Jews. The example likewise of Abraham as a hero in faith must have been obvious to every Jew, and the example of Rahab (which is adduced only in the Epistle to the Hebrews — an epistle neither composed by Paul nor containing the peculiarly Pauline doctrinal statement of justifying faith), since it proved the benefit of the monotheistic faith to a Gentile of impure life, must have especially commended itself to the Jews who were disposed to extol the importance of faith in Je- hovah.* Since it appears that a reference to the Pauline doc- trinal scheme is not indicated in this epistle, that mark is withdrawn by which it has been thought that the late period of its composition could be proved ; in order, there- fore, to determine this point, we must seek for other marks in the epistle itself. It is remarkable that, ac- cording to its superscription, it is addressed only to the Jews of the twelve tribes who lived in the dispersion, and yet it is manifestly addressed to Christians. Yet this may be very well explained if we consider the standing- point of James, such as it is shewn to be by the whole of the epistle. He considers the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus as essentially belonging to genuine Judaism, behevers in Jesus as the only genuine Jews, Christianity as perfected Judaism, by wliich.the vc^iog had attained its completion. And it is not impossible that, although he addressed himself especially to Chris- tians, he also had in his thoughts the Jewish readers in- to whose hands the epistle might fall, as Christians lived among the Jews without any marked separation. From the mention of their descent from the twelve tribes, we may infer that these churches consisted purely of Jewish Christians, or that James, who considered himself pecu- * Thus it appears to me that what Dr De Wette says in the Studien und KritiJcen, 1830, p. 349, in order to point out an intentional opposition of James to Paul, is nullified. VOL. II. B 18 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. liarly the apostle of the Jews, addressed only the Jewish part of the church. Yet as no notice is taken of the re- lation of Jewish to Gentile Christians, it is by far the most probable opinion that these churches consisted entirely of the former. Partly from the pecuhar standing-point of James, and partly from the peculiar situation of these churches which had retained all the Jewish forms, we may account for the use of the ancient Jewish name wvu.- yuyA, instead of the pecuhar Christian term vcKXwict as the designation of the meeting of the community of be- lievers.* Such churches might exist during the later apostolic age in the inland parts of Asia, perhaps in Syria. But if the epistle was addressed to churches in these parts, it appears strange that James, to whom the Aramaic must have been much more familiar than the Greek, (although it was not impossible that he had so far learnt the Greek as to be able to write an epistle in it,) should have made use of the latter language. We must therefore conclude, that this point was determined by a regard to the wants of his readers, and that part of them at least belonged to the Hellenists. This being assumed, we must fix the date of the epistle at a time preceding the separate formation of Gentile Christian churches, before the relation of Gentiles and Jews to one another in the Christian church had been brought under discussion,"!* the period of the first spread of Christianity in Syria, Cilicia, and the adjacent regions. J * Our knowledge of tlie spread of Christianity at this pe- riod, is indeed far too defective to give a decisive opinion with Kern on this point. t The view which Dr Schneckenburger has acutely deve- loped, and defended in his valuable " Beitrage zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament" Stuttgart 1832, and in his Annotatio ad Epistolam Jacohi. He has expressed his agreement re- specting the object of the argumentative portion of this epis- tle, with the views I have developed in this work, and in my earlier occasional writings. See his essays on this subject in SteudeVs Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Thcologie, 1829, and in the Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1830, part ii. X An allusion to the use of the name ;^;^/^T/ay