Galatians 1:19Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

But notice with what honor he named him also. He did not simply say "James," but added his glorious title, "the Lord's brother." So foreign was he to every envy.

If he had wished only to indicate the one of whom he spoke, he could have made this clear by using another distinguishing mark and called him the son of Clopas, as the Evangelist also said (Jn 19:25; Mk 15:40).

Yet he did not say this. Since he considered the honorable titles of the apostles to be his own titles, he magnifies James as though magnifying himself.

For he did not call him, as I said, by that other title. How then did he call him? The Lord's brother. Although he was not in fact the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was only considered such, even this did not prevent the Apostle from acknowledging the dignity of this man.

In many other places also he shows that he was disposed toward all the apostles with the sincerity fitting to him.

A good name is better than great riches. Even the Apostle Paul, despite his deep humility, was compelled to defend his apostolic ministry. He once says, "It is better for me to die than to allow anyone to make my boast, my honorable name, void, humbled, or disgraced" (1 Cor 9:15).

How often, to our own sin, we keep silent at those moments when to our face they reproach us, our Orthodoxy, the holiness of our heart, our national feeling, or the honor of our parents and our family. There is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.

3. This means that all the apostles are equal among themselves.

4. One must not preserve forever a conviction about a person's bad qualities. A person can change for the better. Paul, from being Christ's enemy, became Christ's friend.

5. It is not superfluous for Christians to have solitary prayer, or solitude in general, a detachment from the surrounding environment for the good of the soul. It is well known that in solitary occupations one can reason with oneself more calmly. Then thought follows thought smoothly toward the subject under consideration.

Self-examination of one's qualities and weaknesses is better in solitude, and prayer is more exalted. This, brethren, is what we may first remember for life from the brief reading of the apostolic words at today's Divine Liturgy.

He is also so called because he first presided over that Church which the Jews who believed in Christ formed before the others. Yet the other Apostles too are called the Lord's brothers. For example, sicut, in the Gospel: “Go and tell My brethren: I ascend to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God” (Jn 20:17). And in the Psalm: “I will declare Thy name to My brethren; in the midst of the Church I will sing praise to Thee” (Ps 21:23). But this one is called brother in a preeminent sense, because the Lord, departing to the Father, entrusted to him the sons of His mother. Job and the other patriarchs are called servants of God. Yet Moses is called this as though possessing something more excellent, so that it is written about him: “But not so My servant Moses” (Heb 3:5). In the same way, blessed James is called the Lord's brother in a special sense, as we said before. When, besides the Apostles, certain others are also called Apostles, the reason is as follows. All who saw the Lord and afterward preached Him were called Apostles, as it is written in the Epistle to the Corinthians: “He appeared to Cephas, after this to the eleven, illis; then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, simul, of whom many remain alive even until now, and some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the Apostles” (1 Cor 15:5-7). Indeed, over time, little by little, in other places also, Apostles were appointed, ordinati sunt apostoli, from among those whom the Lord chose. The well-known word to the Philippians says this: “But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, your Apostle and minister to my need” (Phil 2:25). Of such a case it is also written to the Corinthians: “Or Apostles of the Churches, the glory,” or “in the glory of God” (2 Cor 8:23). Silas and Judas too were called Apostles by the Apostles. Therefore the one who thought that this James was the Apostle, the brother of John, was very greatly mistaken. That James, as is known, shed his blood for Christ after Stephen, according to the testimony of the book of Acts (Acts 12:2). This James was the first bishop of Jerusalem and had the title Just. He was a man known for such holiness and enjoying such glory among the people that they zealously strove to touch the hem of his garment. He is the one who was later thrown down by the Jews from the pinnacle of the temple. His successor was Simeon, whom they also handed over because of the crucified Lord. Therefore Paul says that, except for these, he met none of the Apostles. Thus there would be no contradiction, as though, even if he had not been instructed by Peter, he had other Apostles as teachers. But he did not see them, and not because he was guided by contempt. Rather, they had been scattered throughout the whole world for the preaching of the Gospel.

Since Paul came many times to Jerusalem, it is not precisely known when he saw none of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. But when he came from Miletus to Jerusalem, it seems that James, having been chosen bishop of that city, was there alone, while the other apostles were scattered through various countries of the world, preaching the Gospel.

For of this coming of his to Jerusalem, St. Luke says, "On the next day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders came" (Acts 21:18). Therefore perhaps then Paul "saw none of the other apostles there, except James, the Lord's brother."

Concerning the brotherhood of James, some say that James was the Lord's brother because he was the son of Joseph, who is called the father of Jesus Christ. Joseph and Clopas were brothers. When Clopas died childless, Joseph took his wife according to the Hebrew law, and from her begot James and Mary.

Mary was called the sister of the Lord's Mother because Joseph was in the place of a father to the Ever-Virgin Theotokos.

Others say that James was the nephew of Jesus Christ, born of Clopas and his wife Mary, the sister of the Theotokos. At that time the Jews also called nephews brothers.

But nothing prevents us from thinking also this: perhaps before Joseph was betrothed to the Most Holy Theotokos, he begot from his wife not only James, but also Joses, Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55), and daughters as well.

All these were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, just as Joseph was called His father. It is also possible that Mary of Clopas was the wife of Clopas and the sister of the Theotokos by father, not by mother (Jn 19:25), being born of Joachim, though not of Anna, but of another earlier wife of his.

"He says this not to humble the apostles, and not to praise himself, but everywhere guarding the security of the Gospel and wishing to show the importance and dignity of his preaching. And if he had needed to consult, the One who revealed to him the word of preaching would have commanded him to do this also."

Nevertheless, after three years had passed, Paul did visit the apostles in Jerusalem. "This journey, undertaken for Peter, proves Paul's great respect for him," says St. John Chrysostom. "And his staying with him for so many days, fifteen in number, proves their friendly disposition and sincere mutual love."

Concerning the Apostle James, Chrysostom says: "Notice with what honor he named him also. He could have said, 'the son of Clopas,' as the Evangelist said. But he did not call him this. How then? 'The brother of the Lord,' although in fact he was not the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was considered such, as the son of Joseph or of the sister of the Theotokos. He shows in many other places also that he was disposed toward all the apostles with all the sincerity fitting to him."

To this blessed Jerome adds: "That St. Paul saw none of the apostles except these was not because he did not wish to see them, but because they had gone out to preach the Gospel."

In the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, where Paul's conversion is recounted in detail, nothing is said about his journey to Arabia. But it says that "many days had passed" (Acts 9:23) before the Apostle Paul came to Jerusalem after his conversion.

During this considerable time he could have visited Arabia, both for preaching, which was easier among those who did not know him, and to withdraw from unfavorable reports caused by his sudden conversion. Finally, he could do so in order to live through more calmly the great change that had taken place in him.

Mt 12:46; Mt 13:55; Mk 3:31; Mk 6:3, and so forth). They are first indicated among the company of believers after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:13-14). Then they appear among the preachers of the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). How then does holy Paul here give a hint that James, the Lord's brother, was an Apostle? For he says: “But I saw none other of the Apostles, except James, the Lord's brother.” These words can be explained thus: I saw none other among the Apostles except Peter, but I also saw one other of the distinguished men, namely James, the Lord's brother. Or this must be understood as meaning that James, because of his holiness and his dignity as head of the Church of Jerusalem, was honored along with the other Apostles and bore the name Apostle. For this reason holy Paul also named him so. Blessed Jerome writes of holy James: “He was the first head of that Church which was first gathered in Jerusalem from believers. That is, he was the first bishop of Jerusalem. He bore the name of the Just and was so holy and so honored by the people that they hastened before one another to touch the hem of his garment. That holy Paul saw none of the Apostles except these was not because he did not wish to see them, but because they had gone out to preach the Gospel.” Chrysostom here draws attention to another side: “Notice,” he says, “with what respect he named this one also. He did not simply say ‘James,’ but added his honorable name. So far was he from all envy. For if he had wished only to indicate the one of whom he spoke, he could have done so by using another mark. For example, he could have said ‘the son of Cleopas,’ as the Evangelist also said. But he did not say this. Since he considered the Apostles' honorable names to be his own honorable names, he magnifies him as though honoring himself. For he did not name him as I said. How then? ‘The Lord's brother,’ though he was not the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was regarded as such. Yet even this did not prevent the Apostle from acknowledging the dignity of this man. In many other places he shows that he was disposed toward all the Apostles as sincerely as was fitting for him.” The heterodox argue much about how James is the Lord's brother. In doing so, they are not ashamed to utter blasphemous words about the Ever-Virgin Mary, the most blessed Mother of the Lord. Through this they subject themselves to the anathema pronounced against such persons by the Third Ecumenical Council. All antiquity regarded this brotherhood either as cousinhood, or as brotherhood through the betrothed Joseph, and only legally. Ambrosiaster says that “James is Joseph's son by a previous wife.” Augustine says that he is “the Lord's brother either because he is among Joseph's sons by another wife, or because he was among the children of Mary, the sister of His Mother.” Chrysostom, as we saw above, holds the latter explanation, as do Theophylact and Theodoret. Theodoret writes: “James was called the Lord's brother, but he was not His natural brother. He was not even Joseph's son, born from a first marriage, as some supposed, but the son of Cleopas and the Lord's cousin, because his mother was the sister of the Lord's Mother.” If we accept this opinion, we must also suppose that Cleopas is not the same person as Alphaeus. Otherwise we would confuse those called the Lord's brothers with the Apostles from the Twelve who had the same names.