And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren - the disciples generally; as distinguished from the officials, James and all the elders, with whom he met next day (Acts 21:18),
Received us gladly, х apedexanto (G588)]. This compound verb, which Luke alone uses in the New Testament, and he seven times besides this place, is here also much better supported than the simple verb [edexanto (G1209)] of the Received Text. Acts 21:18
And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present - to report himself formally to the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, with his associates in office (see the note at Acts 15:13 ), and probably to deliver over the great collection from all the Gentile churches. Had any other apostle been at Jerusalem on this occasion, it could hardly have failed to be noted.
But who was this James?-a question which Neander pronounces (and not without reason) one of the most difficult in the apostolic history. Plainly, he was the same James to whom Peter desired the news of his miraculous release from prison to be conveyed (Acts 12:17), and the same who presided at the great council on Circumcision, (Acts 15:13, etc.) That he was the same with him whom Paul calls "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19, see Mark 6:3), is equally evident. Was he, then, the same, with the apostle "James, the son of Alphaeus" (Mark 3:18 , etc.) - commonly called James the Less, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, and brother of John? So thought Jerome, and after him think many modern critics. But there are, in our opinion, insuperable difficulties in this view-which we have pointed out on the words, "and with His brethren" ( Acts 1:14 ). It follows, then, that this James was not one of the Twelve, nor is he anywhere called an apostle.
Why, then, did he occupy so prominent a position among the Christians at Jerusalem, being their acknowledged head? The most obvious answer to this would be, his near relationship to our Lord. He was "the Lord's brother," in the opinion of not a few, as being His cousin-by a common mode of speech: but this appears to us improbable. The other view is, that he was our Lord's half-brother; and if so, he must either have been Joseph's son by a former marriage (this is the opinion of many, both in early times and more recently), or else the son of Joseph and Mary, after the birth of our Lord of the Virgin. To this opinion-which is that of some of the ablest critics-we incline. But however this question is decided, since there were other "brethren of the Lord's" besides James (Mark 6:3 ), there must have been some other reason for his prominence and authority in Jerusalem; and beyond doubt the esteem in which he was held by all his fellow-citizens and countrymen in general, as well as by the Christian portion of them, and the remarkable wisdom which he displayed in mediating between the Gentile and Jewish sections of the Church, which made him equally trusted by both-were the secret of that influence which, coupled with his near relationship to the common Lord of all, according to the flesh, raised him to the position which we find him occupying in the Acts.
Josephus (Ant. 20: 9. 1-though the passage has been questioned) bears testimony to the estimation in which he was held by the Jews, whose chief men deplored the murder of him by fanatical enemies of his Christian testimony; and Hegesippus, a Christian writer who flourished not long after the death of the Apostle John-whose writings are unfortunately lost, but from which, on this subject, Eusebius (H.E. 2: 23) extracts an interesting account of his martyrdom-says he was surnamed by all "James the Just." (See, in addition, Remark 3, at the close of this section.)