Galatians 1:19

"Other of the apostles I saw not, but James, the brother of the Lord." The A. V. would lead to the conclusion that James was one of the Apostles, in the same sense as Peter was an Apostle, i.e. one of the Twelve. But it is almost certain that -save" is an incorrect rendering, as in Luke 4:26-27 (where indeed it makes nonsense of the passage). See note on ch. Galatians 2:16. St James may still have been spoken of as an Apostle in the wider sense, in which it is now generally admitted the term is used in N. T.

James, the Lord's brother How are we to identify this James? And what are we to understand by the designation -the Lord's brother"?

(1) Two of the Twelve bore the name of James; one, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, the other the son of Alphæus (or Cleopas). It is agreed on all hands that the former is not the James here spoken of. It is also highly improbable that he is identical with the son of Alphæus, called -James the less" (literally -the Little") in Mark 15:40. If St Paul had conferred with twoof the number of the Twelve, his characteristic candour would have led him to state the fact distinctly. He admits that James was one of the Apostolic body, but he was not, like Cephas, one of the original Twelve. We therefore conclude that this James was the president of the Church at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18) and distinct both from the son of Zebedee, who fell by the sword of Herod (Acts 12:2), and from the son of Alphæus [25]. In the Book of Common Prayer -St James the Apostle" is identified with the -brother of John", and the other St James (coupled with St Philip) with the author of the Epistle, and brother of Jude.

[25] "I count it the more probable opinion that this James was not one of the Twelve". Dr Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 478.

(2) It would seem that whatever we understand by the -Lord's brethren", they were not of the number of the Twelve. For we are expressly told that towards the close of our Lord's earthly ministry, His brethren did not believe on Him (John 7:5).

Three views of the relationship here expressed have been held by expositors of Scripture. (a) Some contend that the expression -brethren" is to be understood literally of sons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after the birth of our Lord. This opinion is maintained by Archdeacon Farrar in Dict. of the Bible, Art. -Brother"; but it is rejected by all who with the chief Patristic writers insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary. (b) Others regard these -brethren" as cousinsof our Lord, the sons of Mary (sister of the Virgin) and Cleopas. This may be dismissed for the reason stated already that one of them was of the number of the Twelve, and therefore could not be described as not believing on Him. (c) A third hypothesis is that they were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore half-brothers of our Lord. (That they were the offspring of a Levirate marriage of Joseph with Mary wife of Cleopas, after the death of the latter, may be mentioned as an instance of groundless assumption, only to be discarded.)

The choice then lies between the first and the third view. In a case where the arguments are almost evenly balanced, it is not easy to decide, but on the whole they seem to favour the conclusion that the -brethren" were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore -half-brothers" or step-brothers of our Lord. In support of this conclusion we note that if Joseph is called the father of our Lord (Luke 2:48), Joseph's sons may without great violence be called His brethren. For a full discussion of the subject, see Dict. of the Bible, ut supra, Bp Lightfoot, Dissertation II, Alford on Matthew 13:56.

The other Apostles were probably absent from Jerusalem at this time, on a missionary tour, visiting and confirming the Churches of Judæa and Galilee and Samaria.