Page images
PDF
EPUB

commenced.' To me the difficulty appears greater than it seems to do to Dr. Eadie; and whilst the argument exhibited in the latter part of the quotation given above would have great force, supposing that John had taken Mary home with him only for a few days or weeks, it seems hardly to have much weight if, according to the natural force of the words employed by the evangelist, and the uniform testimony of early tradition, we believe him to have displayed towards her a filial care till her death. But as regards the view espoused by Dr. Lightfoot, these same facts are perhaps not so utterly powerless' in the way of presenting an objection as he assumes. Considering the closeness of the association of the 'brothers' with Mary, and, according to all appearance, the thoroughly affectionate nature of their relations, it seems strange, even on the supposition of their being only her step-children (not so strange, certainly, as if we deem them her own, but still strange), that the Lord should have given her to another. John may have been her nephew,—a comparison of John xix. 25 (interpreted as speaking of four women) with the lists given by Matthew and Mark of the women who witnessed the crucifixion, suggesting that perhaps Salome, the wife of Zebedee, was the unnamed sister of Mary. Still the bequest to him seems strange. But it was obviously understood and acquiesced in unhesitatingly by all parties concerned; and in all likelihood, as Dr. Eadie says in the beginning of the passage quoted above, its explanation was found in some circumstance or combination of circumstances connected with the position of the 'brothers,' which we cannot now determine. The necessity of our falling back on this supposition holds, as it seems to me, whether we deem them to have been children of Mary, or only step-children. The mode in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, and His brothers,' are spoken of in connection with each other in Acts i. 14, makes it not altogether improbable that the whole family were still together, residing with John.

6

On the whole, it appears to me that the theory which regards the Lord's brothers' as His cousins is utterly unten

[ocr errors]

able, and that, whilst the views that they were children of Joseph by a former wife, and that they were children of Joseph and Mary, are both defensible, yet the balance of probability is in favour of the latter.1

1 In addition to discussions found in the writings of the Fathers, a considerable body of literature has grown up on the question in modern times, both in German and English. The most recent detailed disquisitions that I have met with are Dr. Lightfoot's Dissertation in his Commentary on Galatians, and a long note by Dr. Eadie in his Commentary on the same Epistle. An excellent condensed statement of opinions and arguments is contained in Andrews's Life of our Lord, pp. 97-108.

E

I.

JOY IN TRIALS.

'James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes

which are scattered abroad, greeting. 2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations : 3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.'— JAMES I. I-4.

THE

HE Epistle begins, like most of the apostolic letters, and indeed like the letters of the ancients generally, with an announcement of the name of the writer, and of that of the persons addressed. After giving his name, he describes himself, you observe, as 'a servant of God.' The holiest of men is no more than this. Of Messiah the Prince, Jehovah says 'Behold my Servant.' God graciously gives His people many titles of honour: He calls us kings and priests,' 'children, and, if children, then heirs ;' but the spirit of 'a servant,' simple willingness to obey Him, underlies all such relations: whatever else we may be, we are servants.

6

[ocr errors]

And of the Lord Jesus Christ.' In gospel times, all true acceptable service to God must have in the heart of him who renders it this conjunction. Only as we see the claims of Jesus to be our Master and King, and discern God's character as revealed in Him, can we sincerely serve God. When the Comforter is come,' said Jesus to His disciples, 'He will convince the world of sin' (that is, of refusal to be servants of God), because they believe not on Me.' In Christ God has been made flesh, and has dwelt among us, full of the grace, and the truth, and the holy beauty of heaven. God is thus in Christ brought very close to us all, and the whole mass of sin in our natures, every sinful affection and energy, will necessarily show

[ocr errors]

itself in antagonism to Him. Rejection of Christ, then, is plainly for gospel hearers the grand manifestation of sin. So the test of character for us, brethren,—the test whether all that may seem beautiful in our life springs from love to God and consequent hatred of sin, or from mere earthly influences, the criterion by which 'he that serveth God' is to be discriminated from 'him that serveth Him not,'—is our belief or unbelief in Jesus. This is God's commandment,' writes the Apostle John emphatically (as if he would say, 'the commandment in which is gathered up the statement of all duty'), 'that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ.' All this scriptural teaching, you observe, assumes the divinity of the Lord Jesus, losing all pertinence and force on any other view; and the testimony given in support of that vital doctrine by such a conjunction of names as we have in the verse before us, must be recognised by every candid reader. No mind unwarped by sinful prejudice can fail to see, that to associate the name of any, the highest conceivable, mere created being with that of God the Father in the way in which James here associates that of Jesus, would be a glaring insult to the divine majesty.

Some have thought that the description, 'a servant of Jesus Christ,' proves the James who wrote the Epistle not to have been an apostle. The argument is not sufficient, seeing that an apostle, when writing to persons whom he knew to be already well acquainted with his position in the church, and ready, therefore, to receive his instructions with due reverence and confidence, might prefer to designate himself by some more general term, thus coming nearer to his readers, classing himself with them or with their office-bearers, instead of giving prominence to the peculiar dignity of the apostleship. So John, you remember, in the beginning of his second and third Epistles, calls himself 'the elder.' It is interesting, however, supposing James to have been a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, to see how entirely he sinks the earthly relationship. He understood the Saviour's 'Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.'

« EelmineJätka »