true, would none the less have conveyed a 0Mc recall to the minds of St. Ptl.ul's Gentile false impression, and been as an argiiment readers-the prominent lending ftaure in tho illusiYe. He therefore, as a sort of after- Israelite Church at Jerusalem. A~cordingly thought-for the sentence without the addi- we find that when elsewhero St. Paul has tion is grammatically already <'Omplete- occasion to refer to him, he feels no need of ndds the words, "unless it were James the a:ppending o. dofinin~ descriP,tion, but simply Lord's brother." Attention was drawn gives th~ ~ame. So oh. 1i. 9, 12; 1 Cor. 1tbnve, in the not,e o'n ver. 7, to the occa- xv. 7•. S1m1larly, St. Luke, when referring sional use of ,1 µ'I] as "partially exceptive." to plamly the so.me person, not onoe in the It is in this way only that St. James is here Acts t~i~ks it neC?5sary to explain what by implication grouped with the apostles. J~mes 1t 1s that ht: 1s speaking of (see Acts He shnred certain qualities attaching to xn. 17; xv. 13; xx1. 18). He acids a further them which were so relative to the matter descrip_tio? of the individual intended, only in hand that the writer could not in this when 1t 1s not the Lord's brother as in reference pnss him by without mention. It Ac~s xii. 2. Similarly also Jude, 'in his is in a somewhat similar wnv that " the Epistle, wben marking his own personality brethren of the Lord" are grouped with and therewith his claim to attention desig- apostles in 1 Cor. ix. 5. One remark more nates himself as " Jude the brother of on the words, "the Lord's brother." They Jo.mes," taking it for granted that hie have been commonly supposed to have been readers would understand what J·ames we.s o.dded for the purpose simply of making it meant. St. Paul's purpose in adding the clear what particular individual among words seems rather to be this: he wishes to sever::i.l. bearing the name of " James" the indicate why this James, not being an writer is referring to. This view of their apostle, yet needs to be here brought forward be:iriug seems open to question. There was o.t all. Viewed in this light, the clause only one man whom the recital of the name tells against the supposition of his being "James" would naturally and of conrse at one of the twelve rather than in its favour.
HOMILETICS. Ver. 1.-The inspired authority of the apostle. The first line of the Epistle is designe:i to settle the question of his authority and independence as a teacher of th'e Church. The truth of the gospel, e.s he phrases it (eh. ii. 5), was involved in this merely personal question. L THE NECESSITY FOB. VINDICATING ms AUTHORITY. Emissaries of the Judaistic party, who had obtained access to the Galatian Churches, sought to undermine his doctrine by denying or minimizing his apostleship. They limited the term "apostle " almost exclusively to the twelve, and were thus enabled to assert (1) tho.t he was not an apostle in the highest sense, as he was not a personal disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore could not claim the inspiration of those on whom he breathed the Holy Ghost (John x.x.. 22); (2) that, in any case, he stood in official subordination to the twelve, and was not, therefore, to be followed where be diverged from their teaching; and (3) that the proceedings at Antioch (Acts xiii. 1, 2) necessarily implied that he received alike his commission and his gospel from man. IL HIS COMMISSION AT ONCE ORIGINAL AND DIVINE. "An apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." 1. He was a true apostl,e. He emphatically asserts his independent apostleship, placing his official title in the very forefront of his Epistle. He affirms that he was an apostle before he had any intercourse with the twelve (eh. i. 17, 18), and that on three different occasions the apostles recognized his full apostolic standing ( eh. i. 18, 19; ii. 9, 10; ii. 11-21). He was therefore, no delegate of the twelve, and had no secondary or intermediate place of auth'ority under them. He was, as he described himself to the Oorinthians, "a called apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God." 2. His comnnission was not "from (a.1rb) men, nor lYy (Iha.) man." The false teachers might have suggested that the pro- ceedinas at Antioch implied a purely human commission. But he had been called to the a~stleship long before his designation at Antioch t.o a special missionary work (Acts xxvi. 16-20). His calling was neither that of Matthias nor of Barnabas. He was called neither by a body of men nor by an individual representing _the authority of such a body. 3. His commission was enti·rely Divine, "By Jesus Chnst, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." (1) It was by Jesus Christ; for his commission OH, I. 1-24.] 'l'HE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 43