Acts Chapter 12 verse 17 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 17. - Brought him forth for brought him, A.V.; tell for go show, A.V.; to for into, A.V. Beckoning, etc.; κατασείσασ τῇ χειρὶ (see Acts 13:16; Acts 19:33; Acts 21:40). It is the action of one having something to say and bespeaking silence while he says it. Unto James. This, of course, is the same James as is mentioned in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother," and who, in Galatians 2:9, 12, and Acts 15:12 and Acts 21:18, as well as here, appears as occupying a peculiar place in the Church at Jerusalem, viz. as all antiquity testifies, as Bishop of Jerusalem. So Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius ('Eccl. Hist.,' 2:23), "James the Lord's brother, called by universal consent the Just, received the government of the Church together with the apostles;" and in Acts 2:1 he quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that, after the Ascension, Peter, James, and John selected James the Just, the Lord's brother, to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem. And Eusebius gives it as the general testimony of antiquity that James the Just, the Lord's brother, was the first who sat on the episcopal throne of Jerusalem. But who he was exactly is a point much controverted. The three hypotheses are: 1. That he was the son of Alphaeus or Clopas and Mary, sister to the blessed Virgin, and therefore our Lord's cousin german, and called his brother by a common Hebrew idiom. According to this theory he was one of the twelve (Luke 6:15), as he appears to be in Galatians 1:19, though this is not certain (see Bishop Lightfoot, in loc.). 2. That he was the son of Joseph by his first wife, and so stepbrother to the Lord, which is Eusebius's explanation ('Eccl. Hist.,' 2:1). 3. That he was in the full sense the Lord's brother, being the son of Joseph and Mary. This is the opinion of Alford (in lee.), fully argued in the 'Proleg. to the Epistle of James,' and of Meyer, Credner, and many German commentators. According to these two last hypotheses, he was not one of the twelve. "The apostolic constitutions distinguish between James the son of Alphaeus, the apostle, and James the brother of the Lord, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος (Meyer). It may be added that Acts 1:14 separates the brethren of the Lord from the apostles, who are enumerated in the preceding verses. The hypothesis which identifies James the Lord's brother with James the son of Alphaeus or Clopas and Mary is well argued in Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' art. "James" (see also the able Introduction to the Epistle of James in the 'Speaker's Commentary'). It seems impossible to come to a certain conclusion. The weakest point in the hypothesis which identifies James the Lord's brother with the son of Alphaeus is that it fails to account for the distinction clearly made between the Lord's brothers and the apostles in such passages as John 2:12; John 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:13; Matthew 12:46, 49; 1 Corinthians 9:5. For the effect of these passages is scarcely neutralized by Galatians 1:19. But then, on the other hand, the hypothesis that the Lord's brethren, including James and Joses, were the children of Joseph and Mary, seems to be flatly contradicted by the mention of Mary the wife of Clopas as being "the mother of James and Jests" (Mark 15:40; John 19:25). He went to another place. Whether Luke was not informed what the place was, or whether there was some reason why he did not mention it, we cannot tell. The Venerable Bode ('Prolog. in Expos. in Act. Apost.'), Baronius, and other authorities of the Church of Rome, say he went to Rome, and commenced his episcopate of Rome at this time Dr Lightfoot thinks it more probable that he went to Antioch (Comm. on Acts, in vol. 8. pp. 273, 289). Some guess Caesarea; but there is no clue really.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(17) Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren.--The James, or Jacob, thus spoken of may have been either James the son of Alphaeus or James the brother of the Lord. Many writers have maintained the identity of the person described under these two names; but reasons have been given in the Notes on Matthew 10:3; Matthew 12:47; Matthew 13:55, for believing that they were two distinct persons, and that the brother of the Lord was therefore not an Apostle. It is obvious that about this time, probably in consequence of the death of his namesake, the son of Zebedee, James the brother of the Lord comes into a fresh prominence. He is named as receiving St. Paul in Galatians 1:19, and as being, with Peter and John, one of the pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9). Probably about this time (but see Introduction to the Epistle of St. James) he addressed the letter that bears his name to the Twelve Tribes that were scattered abroad. He presides at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:13, and acted as bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. According to the statement of Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian writer of the second century, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. ii. 23). he led the life of a Nazarite in all its rigour, was regarded by the Jews as having a priestly character, wore the linen ephod, and the golden petalon or plate, fitting on the brow of the priests, and as such was admitted to the Holy Place in the Temple. In A.D. 62 or 63 he was tempted by the priestly rulers, especially by the high-priest Ananias, to declare that the Christ was a deceiver, and on proclaiming his faith in Him was thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple, and as he lay on the ground, received a coup de grace from a fuller's club. The way in which St. Peter here speaks of him implies that he was, in some way, the head and representative of the Christian community at Jerusalem. . . .