Acts 12:17 - Exposition

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 , Galatians 2:12 , 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.,' Ecclesiastes 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 , John 7:5 , John 7:10 ; Acts 1:13 ; Matthew 12:46 , Matthew 12:49 ; 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. Some guess Caesarea; but there is no clue really.