Attention! The comments below are for ADVISORY purposes only. Thanks to the historical information they contain, they ONLY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND what is written in the Bible. Commentaries should NOT be taken on equal footing with Scripture in any way!

Comments
Barkley

Commentary (introduction) to the entire book of James

Comments on Chapter 2

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

The Epistle of James was only included in the New Testament after a stubborn struggle. But even after it was included in the Holy Scriptures, it was viewed with suspicion and reserve. Back in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther would have readily excluded it from the New Testament.

DOUBTS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

In the writings of the Church Fathers, the Epistle of James is found only at the beginning of the fourth century. The first collection of New Testament books was the Muratorian Canon, dating back to about 170, and the Epistle of James was not included in it. The Doctor of the Church Tertullian, writing in the middle of the third century, very often quotes Scripture, including 7258 times from the New Testament, but not a single time from the Epistle of James. The Epistle of James is mentioned for the first time in a Latin manuscript: which is called the Codex Corbeiensis and dates from about 350; it was attributed to James, son of Zebedee, and was included not among the generally accepted books of the New Testament, but in the collection of theological treatises written by the fathers of the early Christian Church. Thus, the Epistle of James was accepted, however, with certain reservations. A verbatim quotation from the Epistle of James was first quoted by Hilary of Poitiers in a treatise entitled “On the Trinity,” written around 357.

But if the Epistle of James became known so late in the Church, and its acceptance was associated with reservations, how then was it included in the New Testament? Of great importance in this is Jerome, one of the outstanding teachers of the Church (330-419), who, without the slightest hesitation, included the Epistle of James in his verified edited translation of the Bible, called the Vulgate. But he had some doubts. In his book On Famous Men, Jerome wrote: “James, who is called the brother of the Lord, wrote only one epistle - one of the seven conciliar epistles, about which some people say that someone else wrote it and attributed it to James.” Jerome fully recognized this epistle as an integral part of Holy Scripture, but he realized that there was some doubt as to who its author was. All doubts were finally dispelled when Augustine fully accepted the Epistle of James, without any doubt that this James was the brother of our Lord.

The Epistle of James was recognized rather late in the Church: for a long time it stood under a question mark, but its inclusion by Jerome in the Vulgate and its recognition by Augustine secured for it, after some struggle, full recognition.

SYRIAN CHURCH

It may be supposed that the Syrian church must have been one of the first to receive the Epistle of James, if it had really been written in Palestine and had really come from the pen of our Lord's brother, but the same doubts and hesitations existed in the Syrian church. The official Syriac translation of the New Testament held by the Syriac church is called Pescito and occupies the same place in the Syrian Church as it occupies in the Roman Catholic Church Vulgate. This translation was carried out in 412 by Rabulla, Bishop of Edessa, and at the same time the Epistle of James was first translated into Syriac; before this time there was no translation of it in Syriac, and until 451 this letter was never mentioned in Syriac theological literature. But from this time on it gained wide acceptance, and yet as early as 545 Paul of Nisibis disputed its right to be included in the New Testament. It was not until the middle of the eighth century that the authority of John of Damascus brought about the recognition of the Epistle of James in the Syrian church with the same force with which the authority of Augustine influenced the whole church.

GREEK SPEAKING CHURCH

Although the Epistle of James appeared in the Greek-speaking church earlier than in other churches, it eventually took a certain place in it.

It is first mentioned by Origen, the head of the Alexandrian school. Somewhere in the middle of the third century he wrote: “Faith, even if it is called faith, but has no works, is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle that is now called James.” In other theological treatises, however, he cites this quotation already completely confident that it belongs to James and makes it clear that he believes that Jacob was the brother of our Lord; although even here there remains a tinge of doubt.

A major theologian and bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Eusebius traces and analyzes various books of the New Testament and books related to the New Testament written before the mid-fourth century. He classifies the Epistle of James as “controversial” and writes about it this way: “The first of the epistles, called ecumenical, conciliar, is said to belong to him (James); but it should be noted that some consider it to be counterfeit and, indeed, only very few authors mention his". And here again doubt creeps in.

The turning point in the Greek-speaking church was 267, when Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria wrote his famous Easter Epistle in Egypt. It was supposed to give people guidance on which books were considered Holy Scripture and which were not, because they began to read too many books, or at least, too many books began to be considered Holy Scripture. In this epistle of Bishop Athanasius, the Epistle of James was included in the canon without any additional commentary and since then it has taken a firm place in the canon.

Thus, in the early Church the meaning and importance of the Epistle of James itself was never questioned, yet it became known quite late and for some time its right to take its place among the books of the New Testament was disputed.

The Epistle of James still holds a special position in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1546, the Council of Trent finally, once and for all, established the composition of the Roman Catholic Bible. A list of books was compiled to which nothing could be added. It was also impossible to remove anything from this list. The books of the Bible were to be presented only in a version called the Vulgate. All books were divided into two groups: protocanonical, that is, undeniable from the very beginning, and deuterocanonical, that is, those that only gradually made their way into the New Testament. Although the Roman Catholic Church never questioned the Epistle of James, it was nevertheless included in the second group.

LUTHER AND THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

Today it can also be said that many do not consider the Epistle of James to be the most important in the New Testament. Few would place it on a par with the Gospels of John and Luke or the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. Many people today still treat him with restraint. Why? This is of course not connected with the doubts expressed regarding the Epistle of James in the early Christian Church, because many in the modern Church have no idea at all about the history of the New Testament at that distant time. The reason is this: the Roman Catholic Church determined its attitude towards the Epistle of James by the edict of the Council of Trent, but in the Protestant Church doubts about its history remained and, in fact, even intensified, because Martin Luther opposed it and even preferred to remove it altogether from the New Testament. Luther included a table of contents with his edition of the German New Testament, in which all the books were numbered. At the end of this list was given, separately from the others, a small group of books without numbers. This group included the Epistles of James and Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. Luther considered these books to be of secondary importance.

Luther was especially harsh in his attack on the Epistle of James, and an unfavorable opinion from a great man could ruin the book forever. Luther's famous statement about the message is found in the last paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament:

"So the Gospels and 1 John, the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians and Corinthians, and 1 Peter are the books that show you Christ. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if You would never have seen any other book, or heard of them, or even heard of any other teaching. Compared to them, the Epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because there is nothing ecclesiastical in it. But more on this in other prefaces."

Luther developed his assessment in the "Preface to the Epistles of James and Jude", as he promised, He begins: "I highly value the Epistle of James and consider it useful, although it was not accepted at first. It is about the law of God and does not contain exposition and interpretation of human doctrines. As for my own opinion, without regard to anyone else's prejudices, I do not believe that it came from the pen of the apostle." And this is how he justifies his refusal.

First, in contrast to Paul and the rest of the Bible, the Epistle ascribes a redemptive quality to human actions and accomplishments, incorrectly citing Abraham as an example, who supposedly atoned for his sins through his deeds. This in itself proves that the letter could not have come from the pen of the apostle.

Secondly, there is not a single instruction or reminder to Christians that they should remember suffering, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. It speaks of Christ only twice.

Then Luther sets out his principles for evaluating any book in general: “The true standard for evaluating any book is to establish whether it emphasizes the prominent position that Christ occupies in the history of mankind or not... What does not preach Christ is not from "the apostles, even if it was Peter or Paul who preached it. And on the contrary, everything that preaches Christ is apostolic, even if it is done by Judas, Anna, Pilate or Herod."

But the Epistle of James does not stand up to such a test. And therefore Luther continues: “The Epistle of James pushes you only towards the law and accomplishments. He confuses one with the other so much that, I suppose, one virtuous and pious man collected several sayings of the disciples of the apostles and wrote them down, or maybe someone wrote the epistle -even after recording someone's sermon, he calls the law the law of freedom (James 1.25; 2.12), while Paul calls it the law of slavery, wrath, death and sin (Gal. 3:23ff; Rom. 4:15; 7:10ff)".

Thus, Luther draws his conclusion: “James wants to warn those who rely on faith and do not move on to actions and accomplishments, but he does not have the inspiration, thoughts, or eloquence appropriate for such a task. He commits violence against the Holy Scriptures and contradicts, therefore, Paul and all Holy Scripture; he attempts to achieve by law what the apostles achieve by preaching love to people. And therefore I refuse to acknowledge his place among the authors of the true canon of my Bible; but I will not insist if anyone will place him there, or raise him even higher, because there are many beautiful passages in the epistle. In the eyes of the world one man does not count; how can this solitary author be taken into account against the background of Paul and the rest of the Bible?"

Luther does not spare the Epistle of James. But, after studying this book, we may conclude that this time he allowed personal prejudices to interfere with common sense.

This is how complex the story of the Epistle of James was. Now let's look at the related issues of authorship and dating.

PERSONALITY OF JACOB

The author of this message, in fact, does not tell us anything about himself. He calls himself simply: "James, servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). Who is he then? There are five people with this name in the New Testament.

1. Jacob is the father of one of the twelve, named Judas, but not Iscariot (Luke 6:16). It is given only to refer to someone else and cannot have any relation to the message.

2. Jacob, son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve (Mark 10:3; Matt 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Comparison Mat. 9.9 and Mar. 2.14 shows that Matthew and Levi are the same person. Levi was also the son of Alphaeus and, therefore, the brother of Jacob. But nothing more is known about Jacob, son of Alphaeus, and therefore he, too, could not have anything to do with the message.

3. Jacob, nicknamed "the lesser", mentioned in Mar. 15.40; (cf. Matt. 27:56 and John 19:25). Again, nothing more is known about him and, therefore, he could not have anything to do with the message.

4. James - brother of John and son of Zebedee, one of the twelve (Mark 10:2; Matt. 3:17; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). In the Gospels, James is never mentioned on his own, without his brother John (Matt. 4.21; 17.1; Mark 1.19.29; 5.37; 9.2; 10.35.41; 13.3; 14.33; Luke 5.10; 8.51; 9.28.54 ). He was the first martyr of the twelve; Herod Agrippa beheaded him in 44, he was associated with the message. In the Latin Codex Corbeiensis, written in the fourth century, a note was made at the end of the epistle that most definitely attributed the authorship to James, son of Zebedee. But this authorship was taken seriously only in the Spanish church, where until the seventeenth century he was considered the author of this letter. This is due to the fact that John of Compostela, the father of the Spanish church, was identified with James, the son of Zebedee, and therefore it is quite natural that the Spanish church was predisposed to consider its head and founder as the author of the New Testament epistle. But the martyrdom of James came too early for him to write this epistle and, moreover, only the Codex Corbeyensis connects him with the epistle.

5. Finally, James, who is called the brother of Jesus. Although his name was first associated with the message only by Origen in the first half of the third century, traditionally the message was attributed to him. As already mentioned, in 1546 the Council of Trent decided that the Epistle of James is canonical and was written by an apostle.

Let us consider everything that is said about this Jacob. From the New Testament we learn that he was one of Jesus' brothers (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55). Later we will discuss in what sense the word brother should be understood. During the period of Jesus' preaching, His family could neither understand Him nor sympathize with Him and wanted to stop His work (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:21.31-35; John 7:3-9). John says directly: “For His brothers also did not believe in Him.” (John 7.5). Thus, during the period of Jesus’ earthly preaching, James belonged to His opponents.

The book of the Acts of the Apostles records a sudden and inexplicable change. From the very first lines of the book, the author tells that the mother of Jesus and His brothers were among a small group of Christians ( Acts 1.14). And from this place it becomes clear that Jacob became the head of the Jerusalem church, although there is no explanation anywhere how this happened. So Peter sent word of his deliverance to James (Acts 12:17). James presided over the council of the Jerusalem church, which approved the entry of pagans into the Christian Church (Acts 15). And Paul, who first came to Jerusalem, met with James and Peter; and again he discussed the scope of his activities with Peter, James and John, revered pillars of the Church (Gal. 1.19; 2.9). During his last visit to Jerusalem, which led to his imprisonment, Paul brought to James the donations collected from the pagan churches (Acts 21:18-25). This last episode is very important because in it we see that James was sympathetic to the Jews who kept the Jewish law, and, moreover, convincingly insisted that their beliefs should not be insulted and even persuaded Paul to demonstrate his loyalty to the law by encouraging him to accept themselves the expenses of some Jews who took a vow of Nazirites.

Thus, it is clear that James was the head of the Jerusalem church. This has received great development in tradition and legend. Egesipus, one of the first historians of the Church, reports that James was the first bishop of the Jerusalem church. Clement of Alexandria goes further and says that James was chosen for this ministry by Peter and John. Jerome writes in the book “On Famous Men”: “After the Passion of the Lord, James was immediately consecrated by the apostles to the rank of Bishop of Jerusalem. He ruled the Jerusalem church for thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Nero.” The last step in the creation of this legend was the “Clementine Confessions,” which say that Jacob himself was ordained bishop of Jerusalem by Jesus himself. Clement of Alexandria conveys a strange legend: “The Lord entrusted the message (knowledge) to James the Just, John and Peter after the Resurrection; they passed it on to the other apostles, and the apostles to the seventy.” There is no point in tracing the further development of this legend, but it is based on the fact that Jacob was the undisputed head of the Jerusalem church.

JACOB AND JESUS

IN 1 Cor. 15 a list of the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection is given in the following words: “Then he appeared to Jacob” ( 1 Cor.. 15, 7). And, in addition, we find a strange mention of the name of James in the Gospel of the Jews, one of the first gospels, which was not placed in the New Testament, but which, judging by the surviving fragments, could be of great interest. Here is an excerpt from it that has come down to us from Jerome: “And now the Lord, having given the shroud to the servant of the high priest, went in to Jacob and appeared to him (because Jacob swore that he would not eat bread from the moment he tasted the cup of the Lord until until he sees Him risen again from those who sleep)." And further: “Bring you,” says the Lord, “a table and bread,” and immediately added: “He took the bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to Jacob the Just and said: “My brother, eat your bread, for the Son Man has risen from those who sleep."

There are some difficulties to note in this passage. It seems that it has this meaning: Jesus, having risen from the dead and came out of the tomb, gave the shroud that He wore in death to the servant of the high priest and went to His brother James. It also seems that the passage implies that Jacob was present at the Last Supper. But despite the unclear and incomprehensible places in the passage, one thing is absolutely clear: something in the behavior of Jesus in the last days and hours so captured the heart of Jacob that he vowed not to eat until Jesus rose again, and therefore Jesus came to him and gave him the necessary assurance. It is clear that Jacob met the risen Christ, but we will never know what happened at that moment. But we know that after this James, who had previously been hostile and unfriendly to Jesus, became His slave in life and a martyr in death.

JACOB - MARTYR FOR CHRIST

Early Christian lore and tradition are consistent in the fact that Jacob died a martyr. Descriptions of the circumstances of his death vary, but the assertion that he died as a martyr remains unchanged. Josephus has a very short message (Antiquities of the Jews 20:9.1):

“And therefore Ananias, being such a man and believing that a good opportunity was being offered to him, because Festus was dead and Albinus had not yet arrived, called a trial and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ - by the name of James - and some others accused of breaking the law and handed them over to be stoned."

Ananias was the Jewish high priest, Festus and Albinus were procurators of Palestine, occupying the same position as Pontius Pilate had previously held. What is important about this account is that Ananias took advantage of the so-called interregnum, the time between the death of one procurator and the arrival of his successor, to eliminate James and other leaders of the Christian Church. This is quite consistent with our information about the character of Ananias. From this we can also conclude that Jacob was killed in 62.

A much more detailed account is given in the history of Egesippus. This story itself is lost, but the message about the death of Jacob is completely preserved by Eusebius ("History of the Church" 2.23). This is a rather long message, but it is of such great interest that it needs to be given here in full.

“The leadership of the Church passed to the Lord’s brother James, together with the apostles, the one whom everyone from the time of the Lord to this day called the Just, because many were called Jacob. And he was a saint from his mother’s womb; he did not drink wine or strong drinks and did not eat meat; a razor never touched his head; he did not anoint himself with oil (for anointing) and did not take a bath. He alone could enter the Holy Place because he wore linen clothes, not wool. And only he alone entered the Temple and he could be seen there prostrate on his knees, praying for the forgiveness of people, so that his knees were calloused like those of a camel, due to constant prostration in prayer to God and begging forgiveness for people. For his unusual virtue he was called the Just, or Obias, which translated from Greek means the Stronghold of the People and Righteousness, as the prophets testify to it.

And therefore some of the seven sects already mentioned in the Memoirs said to him: “Where is the way to Jesus?” and he answered that Jesus was the Savior - and many believed that Jesus was the Christ. Well, the sects mentioned above did not believe either in the Resurrection or in the One who will reward everyone according to their deeds; And those who believed in it believed because of Jacob. And due to the fact that many of the rulers also believed, confusion arose among the Jews, scribes and Pharisees, because, they said, there is a danger that all people will wait for Jesus Christ. And therefore, having met with Jacob, they said to him: “We beg you, restrain the people, because they are straying from the true path and are following Jesus, considering Him to be Christ. We beg you to convince all those who will come on the day of Passover regarding Jesus , because we all listen to your word, because we and all the people testify to you that you are just and do not look at personalities. And therefore, warn the people about Jesus not to step on the wrong path, because all the people and all of us believe in you; and therefore speak your word from the roof of the Temple, so that you can be clearly seen, and your words can be heard by all the people: all the tribes and the pagans too have gathered for Easter.”

And so the mentioned scribes and Pharisees put Jacob on the roof of the Temple and called out to him: “O You, the Just One, to whom we should all listen - for the people are leaving the true path - tell us where is the path of Jesus?” And he, Jacob, answered with a loud voice: “Why do you ask me about the Son of Man? He Himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the Almighty (Great Power) and will come on the clouds of heaven.” And when many were converted and praised the testimony of Jacob and said: “Hosanna to the Son of David,” the same scribes and Pharisees said among themselves: “We have made a mistake in allowing such a testimony about Jesus, but let us go and throw him (Jacob) down, so that out of fear they did not believe him." And they cried, "Oh, oh, even the Just One has gone astray," and they did what Isaiah said, "Let us remove the Just One, because he is causing us trouble; and therefore they will eat the fruit of their deeds."

And they went up and threw the Just One down, and they said to each other, “Let us stone Jacob the Just,” and they began to stone him, because the fall did not kill him, and he turned and knelt down, saying, “I beseech You, Lord God the Father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.” And when they stoned him like that, one of the priests, the son of Rechabit, about whom the prophet Jeremiah says, cried out: “Stop! What are you doing? The just one is praying for you.” And one of them, who was clothing, took the stick with which he was beating out the cloth, and lowered it on the head of the Just One, and he died the death of a martyr. And they buried him right there near the Temple. He made a righteous witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately after this Vespasian besieged them."

The last words indicate that Aegesippus had a different date for Jacob's death. Josephus dates it to 62, but if it occurred immediately before the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, then it happened in 66. It is quite possible that much of the story of Aegesippus belongs to the realm of legend, but from it we learn two things. Firstly, it also testifies that Jacob died a martyr's death. And, secondly, that even after Jacob became a Christian, he remained absolutely faithful to the orthodox Jewish law, so much so that the Jews considered him theirs. This is quite consistent with what we have already noted about the attitude of James towards Paul when the latter came to Jerusalem with donations for the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:18-25).

BROTHER OF OUR LORD

Let us try to resolve one more problem in connection with the personality of Jacob. IN (Gal. 1:19) Paul speaks of him as the brother of the Lord. IN Mat. 13.55 and Mar 6.3 his name is listed among the names of Jesus' brothers, and in Acts 1:14 It is said, without specifying names, that Jesus' brothers were among the followers of the early Church. The problem is to find out the meaning of the word brother because it is given so much importance by the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic groups in the national Christian churches. Already in the time of Jerome, there were continuous disputes and discussions on this issue in the Church. There are three theories regarding the relationship these "brothers" had to Jesus; and we will look at them all separately.

JEROME'S THEORY

Jerome developed the theory that Jesus' "brothers" were actually his cousins. The Roman Catholic Church is firmly convinced of this, for which this provision is one of the important elements of doctrine. This theory was put forward by Jerome in 383, and we can do no better than to present his complex arguments one by one.

1. James, the brother of our Lord, is mentioned as an apostle. Paul writes: “But I saw no other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.” (Gal. 1:19).

2. Jerome states that the word apostle can only be used of one of the twelve. In this case, we must look for Jacob among them. He cannot be identified with James, the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, who, among other things, had already died a martyr’s death at the time of writing Gal. 1.19, as is most definitely stated in Acts 12.2. And therefore he should be identified only with another Jacob of the twelve - Jacob, the son of Alphaeus.

3. Jerome proceeds to establish the identity using other data. IN Mar. 6.3 we read: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Josiah...?”, and in Mar. 15.40 we see Mary, the mother of James the lesser and Josiah, at the crucifixion. Since Jacob the younger is the brother of Josiah and the son of Mary, he must be the same person as Jacob in Mar. 6.3, who was the brother of our Lord. And therefore, according to Jerome’s theory, James, the brother of the Lord, James, the son of Alphaeus, and James the lesser are one and the same person, characterized differently. 4. Jerome bases the next and final premise of his argument on the list of women present at the crucifixion of Christ. Let's present this list as it is given by the three authors.

IN Mar. 15.40 we read: "Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James and Josiah, and Salome."

IN Mat. 27.56 we read: "Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Josiah, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee."

IN John 19.25 we read: “His mother and his mother’s sister Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.”

Let's now analyze this list. Each of them mentions the name of Mary Magdalene. One can most definitely identify Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. But the problem is to say how many women are in John's list. Should the list be read like this:

1. His Mother

2. His mother's sister

3. Maria Kleopova

4. Mary Magdalene

or like this:

1. His Mother

2. His mother’s sister, Maria Kleopova

3. Mary Magdalene

Jerome insists that the second option is correct and that the sister of His Mother and Mary of Cleopas are one and the same person. In that case, she must also be Mary, who in another list is the mother of James and Josiah. This James, who is her son, is known as James the lesser, and as James the son of Alphaeus, and as James the Apostle, known as the brother of the Lord, which means that James is the son of Mary's sister (His mother), and therefore a cousin Jesus.

This is Jerome's argument. At least four objections can be raised against it.

1. James is repeatedly called the brother of Jesus or listed among His brothers. In each case the word was used adelphos- a common designation for brother. It may indeed characterize a person who belongs to a common brotherhood. According to this principle, Christians call each other brothers. It can also be used to express affection or love - one can call someone very close spiritually a brother. But when this word is used to denote relatives, it is doubtful whether it means cousins. If James was Jesus' cousin, it is unlikely, perhaps even impossible, that he would have been named adelphos Jesus.

2. Jerome was greatly mistaken in asserting that the title of apostle could only be used in relation to one of the twelve. Paul was an apostle (Rom. 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 9:1)- Barnabas was apostle (Acts 14:14; I Cor. 9:6). The strength was apostle (Acts 15:22). Andronicus and Junius were apostles(Rom. 16:7). It is impossible to limit the use of a word apostle only twelve, and therefore, since there is no need to look for James, the brother of the Lord, among the twelve, then the entire system of Jerome’s arguments collapses.

3. The literal meaning of words in John 19.25 indicates that there are four women mentioned here, not three, for if Mary, the wife of Cleopas, was the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, then this would mean that there were two sisters named Mary in the same family, which is unlikely.

4. It should be remembered that this theory appeared in the Church only in 383, when it was developed by Jerome, and it is quite obvious that it was developed for only one purpose - to substantiate the theory of the purity of the Virgin Mary.

EPIPHANY THEORY

The second major theory regarding the relationship of Jesus and His “brothers” is based on the fact that these “brothers” were actually His half-brothers, the sons of Joseph from his first marriage. This theory is called Epiphanius, named after Epiphanius, who firmly insisted on it around 357; but he did not create it - it existed long before that and, one might say, became most widespread in the early Church. The essence of this theory was already set out in an apocryphal book called the Book of James or Proto-Gospel, dating back to the middle of the second century. This book is about a devoted married couple named Joachim and Anna. They had one big sorrow - they had no children. To their great joy, when they were already in old age, they had a child, and in this, moreover, in all likelihood, they also saw the immaculate conception. The child, a girl, was named Mary, the future mother of Jesus; Joachim and Anna dedicated their child to the Lord and when the girl was three years old, they took her to the Temple and left her in the care of the priests. Maria grew up at the Temple and when she was twelve years old, the priests decided to marry her off. They called all the widowers, ordering them to take their staffs with them. The carpenter Joseph came along with everyone. The high priest collected all the staves, and Joseph was the last to take. Nothing happened to all the staffs, but a dove flew up from Joseph’s staff and landed on his head. Thus it was revealed that Joseph should take Mary as his wife. Joseph was very reluctant at first. “I have sons,” he said, “I am an old man, and she is a girl: lest I become a laughing stock in the eyes of the children of Israel” (Proto-Gospel 9:1). But then he took it, obeying the will of God, and in due time Jesus was born. The Proto-Gospel is, of course, based on legends, but it shows that in the middle of the second century there was a widespread theory that would later be named Epiphanius. But there is no direct evidence to support this theory, and only indirect evidence is given in support of it.

1. They ask: Would Jesus have entrusted the care of His mother to John if she had other sons besides Him? (John 19,26,27). In response to this, we can say that, as far as we know, the family of Jesus did not sympathize with Him at all and it would hardly be possible to entrust anyone from the family with the care of them.

2. They claim that Jesus’ “brothers” treated Him like older brothers to younger ones: they doubted His sanity and wanted to take Him home (Mark 3:21.31-35); they were quite hostile towards Him (John 7:1-5). It could also be argued that they viewed Jesus' actions, regardless of His age, as a nuisance to the family.

3. It is argued that Joseph must have been older than Mary because he completely disappears from the Gospel and must have died before Jesus began his preaching and public ministry. Jesus' mother was present at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, but Joseph is not mentioned at all (John 2:1). Jesus is sometimes called the son of Mary and this leads to the assumption that Joseph had already died by that time and Mary was a widow (Mark 6:3; but cf. Matt. 13:55). Further, Jesus remained in Nazareth for a long time until He was thirty years old. (Luke 3:23), which can be easily explained if we assume that Joseph died and the care of home and family fell on Jesus. But the mere fact that Joseph was older than Mary does not prove that he had no children by her, and the fact that Jesus remained in Nazareth as a village carpenter to provide for the family would be a more natural indication that He was the eldest, not the youngest son. The basis of the Epiphanian theory was the same points on which the theory of Jerome is based. Its goal is to substantiate the theory of the absolute purity of Mary. But for the latter there is no evidence or evidence at all.

ELVIDIAN THEORY

The third theory is called the Elvidian theory. According to it, the brothers and sisters of Jesus were fully His brothers and sisters, that is, His half-brothers and sisters. All that is known about Elvidius is that he wrote a treatise in support of it, which Jerome sharply opposed. What can be said in favor of this theory?

1. A person reading the New Testament without certain theological premises and assumptions perceives the expression “brothers and sisters of Jesus” used in the Gospel as evidence of direct kinship.

2. The account of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke suggests that Mary had more children. Matthew writes: “Rising from sleep, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and received his wife, and without knowing her, at last she gave birth to her firstborn Son.” (Matthew 1:24.25). From this we can clearly conclude that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph entered into a normal marital relationship with Mary. Tertullian, in fact, uses this little passage to prove that both the virginity and the marital state of Mary were sanctified in Christ by the fact that she was first a virgin and then a wife in the full sense of the word. Narrating the birth of Jesus, Luke says: “And she gave birth to her firstborn Son.” (Luke 2:7). By calling Jesus the firstborn, Luke clearly indicates that there were more children later.

3. As we have already said, the fact that Jesus remained in Nazareth as a country carpenter until He was thirty years of age is at least an indication that He was the eldest son and had to take charge of the family after Joseph's death.

We believe and believe that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were truly His brothers and sisters and do not insist that celibacy is superior to sanctified love by marriage. At the heart of any other theory is the glorification of asceticism and the desire to see Mary as an eternal virgin.

And therefore we proceed from the fact that James, who is called the brother of the Lord, was in the full sense the brother of Jesus.

JACOB AS AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE

Can we then say that this James was the author of the present letter? Let's see what evidence supports this point of view.

1. If James wrote the epistle, it is completely natural, it could only be of a general nature, which it is. James was not, like Paul, a traveler known in many church communities. James was the leader of the Judaism movement in Christianity and one might well expect that if he were the author of the message, it would be similar to an appeal to Jewish Christians.

2. There is nothing in the epistle that a virtuous Jew cannot accept or agree with; some even believe that it is a Jewish ethical treatise that found its way into the New Testament. It was also pointed out that in the Epistle of James one can find many such phrases that read equally well in both the Christian and the Jewish sense. The words "twelve tribes scattered" (James 1:1) can be attributed not only to Jews living in the Diaspora around the world, but also to the Christian Church, the new Israel of the Lord. The word "Lord" can refer equally to Jesus and God the Father. James says that God begat us by the word of truth, that we might be some firstfruits of His creatures." (James 1:18) can equally be understood in terms of God's act of creation or in terms of regeneration, God's re-creation of humanity in Jesus Christ. The expressions “perfect law” and “royal law” (James 1.25; 2.8) may equally be understood as the ethical law of the Ten Commandments and as the new law of Christ. The words of the "elders of the Church" - ekklesia (James 5:14) can be understood both as elders of the Christian Church and as elders of the Jews, because in the Septuagint (a translation of the Bible made in Alexandria in the third century BC) ekklesia is the title of God's chosen people. IN Jacob 2.2 it speaks of “your meeting”, and the word is used synagogue, and it can rather be understood as synagogue, rather than how Christian church community. Addressing readers as brothers is absolutely Christian in nature, but it is equally inherent in the Jews. The Coming of the Lord and the picture of the Judge standing at the door (James 5,7.9) are equally inherent in both Christian and Jewish ways of thinking. The phrase that they condemned and killed the righteous (James 5:6), is often found in the prophets, and the Christian read it as an indication of the Crucifixion of Christ. There is really nothing in this message that an Orthodox Jew could not accept with a pure heart.

It can be argued that all this speaks in favor of Jacob: he was the head, if you can call it that, of Jewish Christianity, he was the head of the Jerusalem church.

At one time the Church must have been very close to Judaism and rather represented a reformed Judaism. This type of Christianity lacked the breadth and universality that the Apostle Paul gave it. Paul himself said that he was destined to be a missionary to the Gentiles, and Peter, James and John to the Jews (Gal. 2.9). The Epistle of James may well reflect the views of Christianity in its early form. This can explain the following two points.

First, it explains why James so often expounds and repeats the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount. We can compare Jacob 2.12 and Mat. 6,14.15; Jacob 3:11-13 and Matt. 7.16-20; Jacob 5.12 and Mat. 5.34-37. The ethics of Christianity were of great interest to all Jewish Christians.

Secondly, it may help explain the relationship between this letter and Paul's teaching. At first sight Jacob 2.14-26 contains direct attacks on Paul's teaching. "A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). This contradicts Paul's teaching about justification by faith. In fact, James condemns faith that does not lead to any ethical action. And those who accused Paul of preaching just such a faith did not read his epistles, for they are simply filled with demands of a purely ethical nature, as can be seen in the example Rome. 12.

James died in 62 and could not see Paul's letters, which became the common property of the Church only in the 90s. And therefore the Epistle of James cannot be considered either as an attack on the teachings of Paul, or as their perversion. And such a misunderstanding was most likely to occur in Jerusalem, where Paul's teaching on the priority of faith and grace and his attacks on the law were viewed with suspicion.

We have already said that the Epistle of James and the message of the council of the Jerusalem church to the churches of the Gentiles have a strange similarity to each other in at least two points. First of all, both start with the word rejoice (James 1:1; Acts 15:23), in the Greek version - hairrein. This is the traditional beginning of a Greek letter, but for the second time in the New Testament it is found only in a letter from the commander Claudius Lysias to the governor of the province Felix ( Acts 23.26-30). Secondly, in Acts 15.17 is a phrase from Jacob's speech that speaks of the nations, among whom my name will be proclaimed. This phrase is repeated only once in the New Testament. Jacob 2.7, where it is translated like this: the name by which you are called. Although these phrases are different in the Russian translation, they are the same in the original Greek. It is interesting that in the message of the council of the Jerusalem church we find two unusual phrases that are found only in the Epistle of James. It should also not be forgotten that the epistle of the council of the Jerusalem church was in all likelihood composed by James.

This fact supports the theory that the Epistle of James was written by James, the brother of our Lord and the head of the Jerusalem church.

But, on the other hand, there are facts that still make us doubt his authorship.

1. It might be supposed that if the author of the epistle had been a brother of the Lord, he would have made some reference to this. But he calls himself only a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (James 1:1). After all, such an indication would not necessarily serve his personal glory, but would give weight and significance to his message. And such weight would be especially valuable outside Palestine, in countries where hardly anyone knew Jacob. If the author of the message was indeed the brother of the Lord, why did he not mention this directly or indirectly?

2. Since the epistle does not indicate that its author is a brother of the Lord, one would expect an indication that he is an apostle. The Apostle Paul always began his epistles with certain words. And again, the point here is not about personal prestige, but about the reference to the authority on which he relies. If James, who wrote the epistle, was indeed the brother of the Lord and the head of the Jerusalem church, one would expect an indication of his apostleship at the very beginning of the epistle.

3. But the most surprising thing - and this prompted Martin Luther to challenge the epistle's right to be included in the New Testament - is the almost complete absence of references to Jesus Christ in it. In the entire message, His name is mentioned only twice, and these mentions are almost random. (James 1.1; 2.1).

There is not a single mention of the Resurrection of Christ in the message at all. We know well that the young Church grew up on faith in the risen Christ. If this message came from the pen of James, then it coincides in the time of writing with the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, in which the Resurrection of Christ is spoken of no less than twenty-five times. It is surprising that a man writing at such an important time in Church history would not write about the Resurrection of Christ, since James had compelling personal reasons for writing about the appearance of Jesus, which apparently changed his life.

Moreover, the message says nothing about Jesus as the Messiah. If James, the leader of the Jewish church, was writing to Jewish Christians in those early years, one would expect that his main purpose would be to present Jesus as the Messiah, or at least to make his belief in it abundantly clear; but there is nothing of the kind in the message.

4. It is clear that the writer of this epistle was greatly influenced by the Old Testament; it is also quite evident that he was very well acquainted with the Books of Wisdom. The message contains twenty-three obvious quotations from the Sermon on the Mount - and this is not surprising. Even before the writing of the first Gospel, summaries of the teachings of Jesus were probably circulated in lists. Some people argue that the writer of the epistle must have known Paul's letters to the Romans and Galatians in order to write so about faith and human achievement; They also rightly assert that a Jew who had never been outside Palestine and died in 62 could not have known these messages. But, as we have already seen, this argument misses the mark, because criticism of Paul's teaching, if any can be traced in the Epistle of James, could only be undertaken by a person who did not read the original Pauline epistles, but used only incorrectly stated or perverted teaching of Paul. Next phrase in Jacob 1.17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift” is written in hexameter and is quite obviously a quote from some Greek poet; and the phrase in Jacob 3.6: "circle of life" may be an Orphic phrase from mystery religions. Where could Jacob from Palestine get such quotes?

Some things are simply difficult to explain if we assume that the author of the letter was James, the brother of the Lord.

As we can see, the pros and cons of James writing this epistle balance each other out, but we will leave this question unresolved for now and turn to other questions.

DATING OF THE MESSAGE

Turning to the factors that shed light on the time of writing the message, we are again faced with the same problem: it is impossible to give an unambiguous answer to this question. It can be argued that the message could have been written very early, but it can also be argued that it was written quite late.

1. It is quite obvious that at the time of writing the message there was still a very real hope for the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ (James 5:7-9). Although the expectation of the Second Coming never left the Christian Church, as the period of its arrival dragged on, this expectation weakened somewhat and lost its urgency. This speaks in favor of early writing of the message.

2. In the first chapters of the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles and in the epistles of Paul, the discussions of the Jews against the admission of pagans into the Church solely on the basis of the principle of faith were reflected. Everywhere Paul went, followers of Judaism followed him, and the acceptance of pagans into the Church turned out to be a very difficult matter. In the Epistle of James, however, there is no hint of this struggle, which is doubly surprising if we remember that James, the brother of the Lord, played a leading role in resolving this issue at the council of the Jerusalem church, and therefore this epistle must have been written either too early, even before these contradictions arose; or very late, after the last echo of this dispute had died down. The absence in the message of references to the contradictions between Jews and pagans can be interpreted in different ways.

3. Equally contradictory are the information reflected in the message about the structure of the Church and its norms. Church meeting places are still called sunagogue (James 2.2). This indicates an early date for the writing of the message; later the church meeting would definitely be called ecclesia, because the Jewish name was soon forgotten. Elders of the Church are mentioned (James 5:14), but neither deacons nor bishops are mentioned. This again indicates an early date for the writing of the epistle and, possibly, a Jewish source, because the Jews had elders and then Christians. Jacob is concerned that many want to be teachers (James 3:1). This may also indicate the early date of writing the epistle, when the Church had not yet developed and developed its system of priesthood and had not yet introduced a certain order into church worship. This may also indicate a late date for the writing of the message, when numerous teachers appeared who became a real scourge of the Church.

But there are two general facts that seem to indicate that the message was written quite late. First, as we have seen, it barely mentions Jesus at all. The theme of the message is essentially the shortcomings of the members of the Church and their imperfections, their sins and their errors. This may indicate a rather late date for writing the message. Preaching in the young Church in the early years of its existence was imbued with the grace and glory of the risen Christ. Later the sermon turned, as it often does today, into a tirade against the shortcomings of members of the church community. The second important fact from which it can be concluded that the message was written late is the condemnation of the rich (James 2:1-3; 5:1-6). The flattery and arrogance of the rich did seem to be a big problem for the Church in the era in which this letter was written, for there were very few, if any, of them in the early Church. (1 Cor. 1:26.27). The Epistle of James appears to have been written at a time when the formerly poor Church was threatened by the newly awakened desire in its members for earthly goods and pleasures.

PREACHERS AND TEACHERS IN THE ANCIENT WORLD

We can make it easier for ourselves to establish the date of the writing of the Epistle of James if we consider it against the background of the world of that time.

Preaching is always associated with Christianity, but preaching itself was not an invention of the Christian Church. The tradition of preaching existed in both the Jewish and ancient Greek worlds; and if one compares Greek and Jewish preaching with the Epistle of James, one is struck by their great similarity.

Let's look first at Greek preaching by Greek preachers. Wandering philosophers (Stoics, Cynics, etc.) were common in the ancient Greek world. Wherever people gathered, one could meet them and hear their calls to virtue: at crossroads, in squares, among large crowds of people at sports games and even at gladiatorial fights. Sometimes they even addressed the emperor directly, reproaching him for luxury and tyranny and calling for virtue and justice. The time has passed when philosophy was studied exclusively in academies and philosophical schools. Philosophical ethical sermons could be heard every day in public places. These sermons had their own characteristics: the order and techniques were always the same. They had a great influence on the manner in which Paul preached the gospel, and James followed in the same footsteps. Let us give a few of the professional methods of these ancient preachers and note their influence on the method of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of Paul to the churches.

Preachers in ancient times sought not so much to learn new truths as to draw people's attention to shortcomings in their way of life and make them see again truths that they knew, by chance or deliberately forgotten. They sought to call people who were mired in debauchery and had forgotten their gods to a virtuous life.

1. They often had fictitious conversations with fictitious opponents in the form of so-called “truncated dialogues.” Jacob also uses this technique in 2.18ff and 5.13ff.

2. They were in the habit of moving from one part of the sermon to another by means of questions which they asked to introduce a new topic. Jacob also uses this method in 2.14 and 4.1.

3. They were very fond of the imperative mood, calling on their listeners to act righteously and renounce error. Of the 108 verses in the Epistle of James, almost 60 are imperatives.

4. They loved to ask their listeners rhetorical questions. Jacob also often asks such questions (2,4.5; 2,14-16; 3,11.12; 4,4) .

5. They often made lively appeals directly to some part of the listeners. Jacob speaks directly to the arrogant rich who trade for profit (4,13; 5,6) .

6. They were very fond of figurative expressions to characterize virtues and vices, sins and positive qualities. James also shows lust and sin in action (1,15) ; mercy (2,13) and rust (5,3) .

7. They used images and pictures of everyday life to awaken the interest of the listeners. Typical images of a bridle, a ship's rudder, a forest fire, etc. were typical for preaching in ancient times. (cf. James 3:3-6). Along with many others, Jacob very vividly uses the image of the peasant and his patience (5,7) .

8. They often cited famous and famous people and their moral behavior as examples. Jacob gives the example of Abraham (2,21-23) , the harlot Rahab (2,25), Elijah (5,17) .

9. In order to attract the attention of listeners, ancient preachers began their sermons with a controversial statement. Jacob does the same, inviting people to accept life with great joy when they fall into temptation. (1,2) . The preachers of antiquity also often contrasted genuine virtue with ordinary standards of life. James, for his part, insists that the happiness of the rich lies in humiliation (1,10) . The preachers of antiquity used the weapon of irony. Jacob does the same (2,14-19; 5,1-6).

10. The preachers of ancient times could speak harshly and harshly. James also calls his reader “a foolish man” and “an unbeliever and an enemy of God.” (2,20; 4,4) . The preachers of ancient times resorted to verbal scourging - Jacob does the same.

11. Preachers of ancient times had their own standard ways of composing sermons.

a) They often ended part of their sermon with a powerful contrast. For example, they contrasted righteous and unrighteous lifestyles. Jacob also repeats this technique (2,13; 2,26) .

b) They often proved their points by asking their listeners direct questions - Jacob does the same (4,4-12) . It is true that we do not find in Jacob the bitterness, empty and coarse humor that the Greek preachers resorted to, but it is quite obvious that he uses all the other methods that the wandering Greek preachers used to win the minds and hearts of their listeners.

The ancient Jews also had their own tradition of preaching. Such sermons were usually delivered by rabbis during synagogue services. They had much in common with the sermons of the wandering Greek philosophers: the same rhetorical questions, the same urgent calls and imperatives, the same illustrations from everyday life, the same quotes and examples from the lives of martyrs for the faith. But Jewish preaching had one curious feature: it was abrupt and incoherent. Jewish teachers taught their students never to linger on one subject, but to move quickly from one subject to another in order to maintain the interest of the listeners. And therefore such a sermon was also called Haraz, What means stringing beads. Jewish preaching often consisted of a heaping of moral truths and exhortations one upon another. The Epistle of James is written exactly like this. It is very difficult to see consistency and a thoughtful plan in it. Sections and verses in it follow one after another, unrelated to each other. Goodspeed writes about this epistle as follows: “This work has been compared to a chain, in which each link is connected with the one preceding it and the one following it. Others have compared its contents to a string of beads... But perhaps the Epistle of James is not so much a chain thoughts or beads, like a handful of pearls, thrown one at a time into the memory of the listener."

No matter how we view the Epistle of James as a manifestation of the ancient Greek or Jewish worldview, it represents a good example of the preaching of that time. And, apparently, here lies the key to unraveling his authorship.

AUTHOR OF JAMES

There are five possibilities to answer this question.

1. Let's start with the theory developed more than half a century ago by Mayer and revived by Easten in The Interpretation of the Bible. In ancient times, it was common to publish books under the name of a great person. Jewish literature between the Old and New Testaments is full of such writings, attributed to Moses, the twelve patriarchs, Baruch, Enoch, Isaiah and other prominent people in order to attract the attention of readers. This was common practice. The most famous of the apocryphal books is the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, in which the sages of later times attribute new wisdom to the wisest of the kings. We must not forget the following about the Epistle of James:

a) There is nothing in it that an orthodox Jew would not accept if the two references to Jesus in James were removed. 1.1 and 2.1, which is not difficult to do.

b) In Greek Jacob sounds like Jacobus, which undoubtedly corresponds Jacob in the Old Testament.

c) The message is addressed to the twelve tribes who are scattered. From this theory it follows that the Epistle of James is just a Jewish composition, signed with the name Jacob and intended for the Jews scattered throughout the world to strengthen them in the faith amid the trials to which they were subjected in pagan countries.

This theory received further development. IN Life 49 Jacob's address to his sons is given, which is a series of short descriptions and characteristics of each of his sons. Mayer states that he can find in the Epistle of James parallels to the description of each of the patriarchs and therefore all twelve tribes given in the address of James. Here are some of the comparisons and parallels:

Asir is a rich man: Jacob 1.9-11; Gen.. 49.20.

Issachar - doer of good: Jacob 1.12; Life 49.14.15.

Reuben - begun, first fruit: Jacob 1.18; Life 49.3.

Simeon symbolizes anger: Jacob 1.9; Life 49.5-7.

Levi is a tribe with a special relationship to religion: Jacob 1.26.27.

Naphtali symbolizes peace: Jacob 3.18; Life 49.21.

Gad symbolizes wars and battles: Jacob 4.1.2; Gen.49.19.

Dan symbolizes the expectation of salvation: Jacob 5.7; Life 49.18.

Joseph symbolizes prayer: Jacob 5.1-18; Life 49.22-26.

Benjamin symbolizes birth and death: Jacob 5.20; Life 49.27.

This is a very ingenious theory: no one can provide irrefutable evidence in its favor, or refute it; and it certainly explains well the appeal to Jacob 1.1 to the twelve tribes living in dispersion. This theory allows us to conclude that the moral and ethical aspects of this Jewish treatise, written under the name of James, made such a strong impression on some Christian that he made some corrections and additions to it and published it as a Christian book. This is, of course, an interesting theory, but perhaps its main advantage lies in its wit.

2. Like the Jews, Christians also wrote many books, attributing them to prominent figures of the Christian faith. There are gospels written in the name of Peter, Thomas, and even James; there is an epistle signed with the name of Barnabas, there are the gospels of Nicodemus and Bartholomew; there are the acts of John, Paul, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, Philip and others. Such books are called in literature pseudonymous, that is, written under in someone else's name.

It has been suggested that the Epistle of James was written by someone else and attributed to the Lord's brother. Apparently this is what Jerome thought when he said that this letter "was published by someone in the name of James." But whatever this message really was, it could not possibly have been “published by someone in the name of Jacob,” because the person who wrote and attributed such a book to someone would have carefully and diligently tried to show who was supposed to be considered by its author. If the author had wanted to publish the book under a pseudonym, he would have made sure that no one would have doubted that its author was James, the brother of our Lord, but this is not even mentioned.

3. The English theologian Moffat was inclined to believe that the author of the letter was neither the brother of the Lord nor any other well-known Jacob, but simply a teacher named Jacob, about whose life we ​​know nothing at all. This, in fact, is not so incredible, because even at that time the name Jacob was very widespread. But then it is difficult to understand what book was included in the New Testament, and why it began to be associated with the name of Jesus' brother.

4. It is generally accepted, however, that this book was written by James, the brother of the Lord. We have already pointed out a very strange point - that in such a book the name of Jesus is accidentally mentioned only twice and it never talks about His Resurrection or that Jesus was the Messiah. But there is another, even more difficult and complex problem. The book is written in Greek and Ropes believes that Greek should have been the native language of the author of the epistle, and the great classical philologist Major stated: “I am inclined to believe that the Greek of this epistle is closer to the norms of high classics than to the Greek of other books of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Hebrews." But Jacob's native language was undoubtedly Aramaic, not Greek, and he most certainly could not have mastered classical Greek. The Orthodox Jewish upbringing he received should have aroused in him contempt for Greek as a hated pagan language. In this vein, it is almost impossible to imagine that this letter came from the pen of James.

5. Let's remember how much the book of James is like a sermon. It may well be that this sermon was actually preached by James himself, but written down and translated by someone else; then it was slightly changed and sent to all churches. This explains both the form of the message and the fact of its identification with the name of Jacob. This also explains the absence of numerous references to Jesus, His Resurrection and Messiahship: after all, James could not touch on all aspects of the faith in one sermon; he is, strictly speaking, making people aware of their moral obligations, and not teaching them theology. It seems to us that this theory explains everything.

One thing is very clear - we may begin to read this little letter realizing that the New Testament contains books of greater significance, but if we study it with perfect reverence, we will close it with a feeling of gratitude to God that it was preserved for our guidance and inspiration.

DISCRETION (James 2:1)

My brothers! have faith V Jesus Christ our Lord of glory, regardless of face.

Partiality is a New Testament expression that means excessively and unfairly favoring some over others because of their wealth, influence, or fame. The New Testament consistently condemns and condemns this vice. The Jewish Orthodox leaders did not blame Jesus for this; even they were forced to admit that He acted and spoke impartially (Luke 20:21; Mark 12:14; Matt 22:16). After the vision that visited him, Peter learned that God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34). Paul was convinced that God judges both Gentiles and Jews equally, because there is no partiality with God (Rom. 2:11). And of this Paul convinces his readers again and again (Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25).

The Greek word prosopolempsia interesting origin. It comes from the expression prosopon lambanein. Prosopon means face, A Lambanein has the meaning raise, elevate, raise. The Greek expression is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The elevation of a person is manifested in a special attitude towards him and, accordingly, in the opposite direction. humiliate someone. Initially, this word did not have any negative connotation; it simply meant receiving a person with honor, with special respect. The prophet Malachi asks if the prince will be pleased and will he accept people favorably?, if they sacrifice him a handicapped animal (Mal. 1.8.9)? Word respect of persons very soon it took on a bad meaning. The elevation of someone based solely on the social status of this person, the prestige he enjoys, his power or wealth came to be called partiality. God accuses people of not keeping His ways and show partiality in the administration of justice (Mal. 2.9). The greatest characteristic of God is precisely His impartiality, His equal treatment of everyone. It was written in the law: “Do not commit unrighteousness in court, do not show partiality to the poor, and do not please the person of the great; judge your neighbor with righteousness.” (Lev. 19.15). Here one more thing should be noted: a person can be unfair by currying favor with the rich, but he can also be unfair by surrounding the poor with a halo. “The Lord,” says Jesus, son of Sirach, “is a judge, and with Him there is no respect of persons.” (Sir. 35.12).

The Old and New Testaments are united in their condemnation of partiality in the justice system and the preferential treatment of some over others, which is the result of subservience to a person, his social position, wealth or worldly influence. And more or less almost all people suffer from this vice. “The rich and the poor meet each other,” says the book of Proverbs of Solomon, “the Lord created both.” (Proverbs 22.2). “It is unjust,” says Jesus, the son of Sirach, “to provide for a poor man who has understanding, and one should not glorify a sinful man if he is rich.” (Sir. 10.26). We must remember that groveling before the crowd is the same partiality as aiding a tyrant.

THE DANGER OF SNOBISM INSIDE THE CHURCH (James 2:2-4)

James warns that snobbery, a feeling of superiority of some over others, can creep into the Church. He describes how two people enter into a Christian community. One of them is well dressed, his fingers are decorated with rings. Boastful people in ancient times wore rings on each finger, with the exception of the middle one, and even several rings on one finger. They even took rings from others and wore them when they wanted to impress someone with their wealth. “We decorate our fingers with rings,” says Seneca, “and put a precious stone on each joint.” Clement of Alexandria recommends that Christians wear only one ring, on the little finger. It should have some kind of religious emblem on it: a dove, a fish or an anchor. The justification for wearing a ring was that it could be used as a seal.

So, one person enters the Christian community, elegantly dressed, with numerous rings, and the other person who enters is poor, in simple clothes, because he has nothing else to wear, and without any jewelry or precious stones. The rich man is greeted with all courtesy and respect and taken to a special place of honor, while the poor man is asked to stand or sit on the floor, near the rich man's footstool.

It should be noted that the picture painted by Jacob was not at all an exaggeration - this is clear from the instructions in his contemporary prayer books. Here is one typical passage from the Ethiopian list of the "Status of the Apostles":

“If any other man or woman in beautiful clothes, brothers from the church parish or from a neighboring parish, enter, you, priest, while you are speaking about the Word of God, or listening or reading, do not show partiality and do not interrupt the sermon in order to show them their places them, but remain calm, for the brothers will receive them, and if there is no free place for them, from the lower brothers or sisters who will rise from their place and make room for them... And if a poor woman or a poor man from the church parish comes in or from a neighboring parish and there will be no free space for them, you, priest, with all your cordiality, prepare a place for such people, even if you have to sit on the ground, for you are paying respect not to man, but to God.”

And so Jacob paints a similar picture. Moreover, he admits that the preacher can pause the service at the entrance of a rich man and escort him to a special place.

Without a doubt, problems of a social nature must have arisen in the early Christian Church: after all, the Church was the only place in the ancient world where social differences did not exist. The master must not have felt very comfortable if he had to sit next to his slave, or if he came to a worship service led by his slave. The gap between the slave, who was by law only a living tool, and the owner, was so great that it could cause difficulties in rapprochement on both sides. In addition, in the era of its birth, the Church was predominantly poor and simple, and therefore, if a rich person turned to Christ and joined the Christian brotherhood, people might have a desire to make something special out of him and see in him a special acquisition for Christ.

The church should be the place where all differences are erased. When men meet in the presence of the King of glory, differences of rank and merit should disappear. In the presence of God, all earthly differences mean less than dust, and earthly righteousness means less than despised rags. In the presence of God, all people are equal.

Verse 4 is difficult to translate. Greek word discrifete has two meanings.

1. It may mean: "You are unsound in your judgment if you do so," in other words: "If you give special honors to the rich, you do not see the difference between the world's standards and God's standards, and cannot decide which to follow."

2. It may mean: "You are guilty of recognizing class differences which should not exist in Christian brotherhood."

We think the second meaning is more appropriate, because James goes on to say, “If you do this, you become judges with evil thoughts.” In other words: “You are breaking the covenant of Him who said: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” (Matt. 7.1).

TREASURES OF POVERTY AND POVERTY OF WEALTH (James 2:5-7)

“God,” said Abraham Lincoln, “must love ordinary people because he created them.” Christianity has always had a special message for the poor. In His first sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth, Jesus said, “He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor.” (Luke 4:18). To the difficult question of John the Baptist whether He is the One who is to come, the Anointed of God, Jesus answered: “The good news is preached to the poor.” (Matthew 11.5). The first of the beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5.3). And in Luke this is expressed even more clearly: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20). When Jesus was driven out of the synagogues and preached the good news along the highways, on the mountains and by the seashore, He spoke to crowds of ordinary people. And in the era of the birth of the Christian Church, itinerant preachers addressed their sermons primarily to the masses of ordinary people. The Christian good news, in essence, is that those who mean nothing to anyone are of great importance to God. “Behold, brethren, who ye are called,” wrote Paul, “there are not many of you wise according to the flesh, not many of you that are mighty, not many of you noble.” (1 Cor. 1:26).

The Gospel gave so much to the poor, and demanded so much from the rich, that it was precisely crowds of the poor who came to the Church. After all, it was the simple people who listened to Jesus with joy, but the rich young man left sad because he was the owner of great wealth. James does not at all close the doors of the Church to the rich, but he does say that Christ's Good News is especially dear to poor people. It is addressed to those to whom no one addresses itself, and therefore, first of all, it is heeded by those whom the world does not give a damn about.

In the society in which Jacob lived, the rich oppressed the poor. They took the poor to court for their debts. People at the very bottom of the social ladder were so poor that they barely had enough to live on, and there were many lenders who lent money at extortionate interest rates. In the ancient world, a person could be arrested without any warrant or court order. A creditor could, having met his debtor on the street, grab him and, in the literal sense of the word, “drag” him to court. This is how the rich acted towards the poor; they had no sympathy for people, but only one goal: to take a person’s last penny. James hates the behavior of the rich man: such a rich man dishonors the name by which Christians are called.

Christians For the first time they began to call followers of Christ in mockery in Antioch, perhaps because on the day of baptism the name of Christ was pronounced over a Christian. Jacob uses the word episaleisfai translated in the Bible: are you called, and this word among the Greeks denoted the fact that a married woman adopted the name of her husband. The same word was used when the child was given the name of the father. A Christian accepts the name of Christ by baptism in His name. Baptism is like marrying Christ or being born and baptized into the family of Christ. Rich people and masters must have had many reasons to dishonor the name of Christians: a slave who became a Christian gained a new independence; he no longer felt awe at the master's power, punishment no longer frightened him, and he looked into the master's face, clothed with new courage.

He was gaining a new honesty. He became a better servant, but at the same time, he no longer wanted to serve as an instrument in the frauds and petty intrigues of his master; he gained a new sense of reverence God and insisted on leaving work on Sunday so that he could worship God with other God's people. The slave owner, indeed, had enough reasons to dishonor the name of Christians and curse the name of Christ.

THE KING'S LAW (James 2:8-11)

James condemned those who give special attention to a rich man who has converted to Christianity. “But,” they may object to Jacob, “the law teaches me to love my neighbor as myself, and therefore we are obliged to greet the person entering the church.” “Fine,” Jacob replies, “if you really welcome such a person because you love him as yourself, and give him the same warm welcome that you would like to receive yourself, that’s fine. But if you give him special hospitality just because he is rich - this is partiality, sin and breaking the law. This has nothing to do with keeping the law. You do not love your neighbor at all, otherwise you would not treat the poor man so disdainfully. They love wealth that way, but the law is against it.

James calls the great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" royal law. This expression can have several meanings. It can make a difference law of the highest quality; it may matter law given by the King of kings; it may matter king of all laws; it may matter a law making men kings and fit for kings. The fulfillment of this greatest law makes a person a king over himself and a king among people. This is the law for kings and this law can make a man a king.

James goes on to lay down the greatest principle regarding the law of God: to break any part of the law is to break the whole law. The Jews were quite inclined to see the law as a series of unrelated commandments. Compliance with one is counted as a plus for the person, violation of the other is counted as a minus for him. A person, according to the Jews, could keep some commandments and earn praise for it, while failure to keep other commandments increased, so to speak, his “penalty points.” By adding some and subtracting others, a person, according to some teachers, could end up winning. There was a rabbinical proverb: “Good is he who keeps one law; his days will be extended and he will inherit the (promised) land.” Many rabbis also believed “that the commandment of the Sabbath matters more than all the others,” and therefore keeping the Sabbath was identified with keeping the law.

Jacob sees the will of God in all the law; violation of any part of it is a crime of this will and, therefore, a sin. And this is absolutely true: a person who breaks any part of the law simply becomes a sinner. Even according to human standards, a person who breaks one law becomes a criminal. And so James states: “No matter how good you may be in other respects, if you treat people with partiality, you are acting against the will of God and are a sinner.”

This is a great truth, which today has the same weight as in the old days. A person can be good in almost all respects, but ruin his virtue by one offense. A person may be highly moral in his deeds, pure in his speech and scrupulous in his devotion, but if he is harsh, self-confident, inflexible and callous, then his virtue is ruined.

And therefore let us not forget that although we may claim that we have done many good deeds and withstood many bad ones, there may be something in us that spoils everything.

LAW OF FREEDOM AND CHARITY (James 2:12.13)

In concluding his thought, James draws the attention of his readers to two important facts of the Christian life:

1. A Christian lives according to the law of freedom and he will be judged according to the law of freedom. By this, James means the following: unlike the Pharisee and the Orthodox Jew, a Christian lives not according to a set of norms and demands pressing on him from the outside, but according to the internal demands of love; he follows the right path - along the path of love for God and people, not at all because he is forced to this by some external law or out of fear of punishment, but because the love of Christ abiding in him prompts him to this.

2. A Christian must always remember that only those who show mercy themselves can trust in mercy. This principle runs like a thread through Holy Scripture. Jesus, the son of Sirach, wrote: “forgive your neighbor’s offense, and then through your prayer your sins will be forgiven. Man harbors anger towards man, but asks the Lord for forgiveness; he has no mercy for a man like himself, and prays for his sins. Himself, being flesh, he harbors malice: who will cleanse his sins? (Sir. 28.2-5). Jesus Christ said: "Blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy" (Matt. 5.7). “For if you forgive people their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their trespasses, then your Father will not forgive you your trespasses.” (Matthew 6,14,15). “Judge not, lest ye be judged. For with the same judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.” (Matt. 7,1.2). Jesus spoke about the punishment that befell a servant who did not want to forgive his debtor, and ended the parable with these words: “So will My Father in heaven do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart for his sins.” (Matthew 18:35).

Scripture is unanimous that a person who expects mercy must himself be merciful. And James goes even further than this, declaring at the end that mercy triumphs over justice; by this he means that on the Day of Judgment the person who has shown mercy will realize that his mercy has blotted out even his sins.

FAITH AND HUMAN WORKS (James 2:14-26)

Before we study this passage in detail, we must look at it in its entirety, because this passage is often used to suggest that James and Paul had different views on the same issue. It is clear that Paul is emphasizing that a person will be saved by faith alone, and that his achievements will not matter at all. “For we acknowledge that a man is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law.” (Rom. 3:28). “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ...for by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.” (Gal. 2:16). It is often argued that James is not simply expressing a different point of view, but is directly contradicting Paul. This is what we need to consider.

1. To begin with, let us note that James puts the same emphasis that can be found throughout the New Testament. Already John the Baptist preached that a person can prove the authenticity of his repentance only by worthy achievements (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8). Jesus Christ preached that a person should live in such a way that everyone would see his good deeds and glorify the Heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16). Jesus insisted that a person is known by his fruits and that faith expressed only in words cannot in any way be put on the same level as faith expressed in works, in doing the will of God (Matthew 7:15-21). And Paul did not ignore this aspect. Whatever general theoretical and theological problems Paul considered in his Epistles, he always insisted that Christianity manifests itself in works. Moreover, Paul repeatedly emphasized the importance of good works in the Christian life. He says that God will reward everyone according to his deeds (Rom. 2:6) that each of us must give an account to God for ourselves (Rom. 14:12). He calls people to reject the works of darkness and put on the weapons of light (Rom. 13:12). "Everyone will receive his reward according to his work" (1 Cor. 3.8); everyone must appear before the judgment seat of Christ and everyone will receive, according to what he did while living in the body, good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10). The Christian must get rid of his old nature and all its works (Col. 3.9).

The idea that a person's Christianity should be manifested in his behavior, as part of his Christian faith, runs like a red thread throughout the entire New Testament.

2. And, nevertheless, reading the Epistle of James, one gets the impression that he holds a different opinion than Paul, for, despite the motives we have given, Paul places the main emphasis on grace and faith, and James on works and accomplishments. But it should be noted that James is not condemning Paul's point of view, but its perversion. Paul's position, boiled down to one sentence, was: "Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31). But it is quite obvious that the content of this phrase depends entirely on the content of the word “believe.” You can believe in different ways.

Faith can be purely speculative. So, for example, I believe that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs, and if necessary, I can prove it, but this does not change anything in my life, I accept it, but it does not have any effect on my life and on my actions. But there is another belief: I believe that 5 + 5 = 10 and I will not pay more than ten rubles for two bars of chocolate worth five rubles each - I not only understand and remember this fact, but act accordingly.

James objects to the first type of faith, to accepting a fact and not allowing it to have any influence on your life. Demons in their minds are convinced of the existence of God; they even tremble at the thought of Him, but their faith does not change anything in them. Paul had in mind the second type of faith. For him, faith in Jesus meant translating that faith into all areas of life and living accordingly.

It is not difficult to distort Paul's view and dilute the true meaning of the word faith. James is not taking up arms against Paul's teaching, but against the version that distorts it. He condemns religion that is not manifested in everyday life, and such a condemnation would have been fully supported by Paul.

3. But even with this in mind, one more difference must be emphasized between James and Paul - they began in different eras of the formation of Christian life. Paul, who stood at the origins, argued that no person can deserve God's forgiveness: the initiative must come from the voluntary grace of God, a person can only accept the forgiveness offered to him in Jesus Christ.

Jacob began much later, in the era professing Christians, people who claimed that they had already received forgiveness and entered into a new relationship with God. Such people, Jacob rightly says, must lead a new way of life, because they are new creatures. They are forgiven, now they must show that they have become saints. And Paul would have completely agreed with this.

But the fact remains that no one can be saved by the works of his own hands, but in the same way no one can be saved without doing good works. The best analogy here is human love. A loved one is always sure that he is not worthy of being loved, and, at the same time, he is sure that he must devote his life to this - to become worthy of this love.

The difference between James and Paul comes down to a difference in the starting point. Paul begins with a fundamental fact. No man can earn or deserve God's forgiveness, he says. James, on the other hand, pushes away from professing Christians and insists that a person must show and prove his Christianity by his deeds. We are saving ourselves not by deeds, we are saved for business- this is the double truth of the Christian life. Paul emphasizes the first half, and James the second half. They, in essence, do not contradict each other, but complement each other; the message of each of them is of enormous importance for the Christian faith. Let everyone who has such faith and hope put it into action.

RELIGION AND LIFE PRACTICE (James 2:14-17)

Jacob does not accept a creed that does not manifest itself in practical life. To support his thought, he gives a vivid illustration: suppose that a person has no clothes that would protect him from the cold, no food to eat, and his friend expresses his sincere sympathy for him and limits himself to this, without even trying to alleviate the situation of the unfortunate person. What's the use of this? What is the point of empathy if it is not backed up by the desire to translate it into practical action? Faith without works is dead. This passage especially spoke volumes to the Jew.

1. Charity was a matter of the first importance to the Jew, so important that charity and righteousness meant the same thing to him. It was believed that when a person comes to God’s judgment, he will be able, as a defense and self-justification, to refer only to the charity he has shown during his life. “Faith will quench the flame of sin,” wrote Jesus, the son of Sirach, “and alms will blot out sins.” (Sir. 3.30). In the book of Tobit we read: “Do not turn your face away from any beggar, then the face of God will not turn away from you.” (Product 4.7). When the leaders of the Jerusalem church approved of Paul's appeal to the Gentiles, they gave him only one instruction: not to forget the poor (Gal. 2:10). This call to provide practical help to people became one of the greatest and most beautiful aspects of Jewish piety.

2. The Greek religion did not contain a particularly expressed pathos of sympathy and charity: the Greek Stoics strove for apathy, a complete absence of any feelings; the goal of their life was serenity; The Stoics sought the path to perfect tranquility in complete withdrawal from all feelings; in pity the Stoics saw only a violation of the impartial philosophical tranquility to which one must strive. Epictetus said that only those who obey the divine commandments will never feel sadness or pity (Conversations 3:24.43). The Roman poet Virgil, who paints a portrait of a completely happy man in the Georgics (2.498), does not have any pity for the poor man and no sympathy for the suffering, because such feelings would disturb the serenity. This is the complete opposite of the Jewish point of view. The Stoics identified beatitude with equanimity and tranquility, while the Jews identified it with active empathy in the misfortunes of others.

3. Jacob is deeply right: the worst thing for a person is that, again and again, experiencing noble impulses and feelings, he will not try to bring his actions into line with these impulses. And therefore, each time the likelihood that he will be able to do this at all decreases. One might even say that a person has no right to experience sympathy if he does not at least try to put it into action. Feelings are something that needs to be brought to life at the cost of effort and work, at the cost of self-discipline and sacrifice.

NOT “THE OR THE OTHER”, BUT “THE AND THE OTHER” (James 2:18.19)

Jacob imagines someone objecting to him: “Faith is a wonderful thing, but so are works. Both are a genuine manifestation of real faith. But not every person has both together. "maybe one has faith, and another has works. Someone manifests himself in works, and someone has faith. And each of them will be sincerely religious in his own way." The opponent considers faith and works to be equivalent manifestations of the Christian religion. But Jacob is not satisfied with one or the other separately; he believes that the problem is not the presence or absence faith or affairs. The problem is that religiosity must necessarily include both faith and works.

In general, Christianity is often misrepresented as a religion of “this or that,” but it should be a religion of “both.”

1. In a harmonious life there should be a place and thoughts, And action. Usually one person is considered thinking person, and the other - a man of action. The thinking man is pictured as hatching great ideas in his office, and the man of action as doing great things in society. But this is not true. A thinker is only half a man if he does not put his ideas into action. He will hardly be able to motivate other people to do anything if he himself does not go out onto the battlefield and take part in the fight. As Kipling said:

Oh, England is a garden.

And such gardens are not made with words

“Oh, how beautiful!”, sitting in the shade.

Because people are better than us

Started your working life

Taking broken kitchen knives,

Digging up weeds on garden paths.

Nor can any man become a true man of action without first having thought through the great principles on which his actions are based.

2. In a harmonious life there should be a place and prayer, And effort. A great temptation is hidden in dividing people into two groups - saints who spend their lives kneeling in solitude and constant prayer, and workers who work all day in dust and heat. But this picture will not be correct either.

It is said that Martin Luther was close friends with one monk, as staunch a supporter of the Reformation as Luther himself, and they agreed that Luther would go into the world and fight there, and the second would remain in his cell and pray for Luther's success. But one night the monk saw in a dream a lonely reaper in an immense field doing an impossible job. The Reaper turned around, and the monk recognized him as Martin Luther and he realized that he had to leave his cell and prayers to go to his aid. True, there are also people who, because of their age or physical weakness, can only pray, and their prayer really helps others and gives them strength. But if a healthy and strong person believes that prayers can replace effort, then such reasoning is just an excuse. Prayer and effort must go hand in hand.

3. In every balanced life there must be both faith and works. Faith can manifest itself and be established in deeds. And only in faith can you decide to do things and do them. Faith must turn into action, for action begins only when a person has faith.

TEST AND PROOF OF FAITH (James 2:20-26)

To support his point, James gives two examples: Abraham is the greatest example of faith; Abraham proved his willingness to sacrifice Isaac when God tested him. Rahab was also a famous heroine of Jewish legend. She gave shelter to spies sent to spy out everything in the Promised Land (Joshua 2:1-21). Later legends say that she became a proselyte of the Jewish faith, married Joshua, and was the direct ancestor of many priests and prophets, including Ezekiel and Jeremiah. By her actions towards the spies she proved her faith.

Both Paul and James are right here. If Abraham had not had faith, he would not have followed God's call. If Rahab had not had faith, she would never have risked linking her fate with the fate of Israel. Yet, if Abraham had not been willing to obey God in absolutely everything, his faith would not have been unreal; and if Rahab had not risked everything, her faith would have been in vain.

These two examples show that faith and works are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are inseparable. No person will begin to act if he does not have faith, and a person’s faith is in vain if it does not move him to action. Faith and works are two sides of man's knowledge of God.

James II 1633-1701

James II was one of the most interesting personalities in the history of England and Scotland in the seventeenth century. The second son of Charles I, for many years he was only a “spare” heir to the throne. His amazing ability to cause a scandal was combined with a genuine talent for military affairs and organizational skills. However, unlike his older brother, he was unable to come to an agreement with his subjects, which, like for his father, had fatal consequences for him.

James II was born in London on October 15, 1633 and was named after his paternal grandfather, James I. As an infant, he received the title Duke of York - traditional for the second son of English monarchs. When in the early 40s the conflict between the king and parliament flared up in full force, Charles decided that his eldest sons should accompany him during the next military campaigns. As a result, the prince, still a teenager at that time, led the life of a soldier: he spent most of his time in military camps, surrounded by royalist commanders. He and his brother were nearly captured by Parliamentary forces during the Battle of Edgehill. When the king's supporters captured Oxford, it was decided to take this opportunity and take care of the prince's education, but he preferred physical exercise to reading. He still managed to master the French language, although this could have happened in childhood and was the merit of his mother and the courtiers. When Oxford fell into the hands of Parliamentarians in 1646, James became their prisoner. He was brought to London, where he and his sister and younger brother Henry were imprisoned in St. James's Palace. The prince tried to escape several times. The first two attempts ended in failure, but as a result of the third, in April 1648, he ended up in Holland.

Portrait of James II. Peter Lely, 17th century, private collection

JAMES II STEWART HEADED THE ENGLISH ADMIRALTY IN 1660 AND EXERCISED COMMAND DURING THE ANGLO-DUTCH WARS. AND ALSO MANAGED THE REORGANIZATION AND EXPANSION OF THE MARINE DEPARTMENT.

Chess played by James II and given to Samuel Pepys, 17th century, London Museum, England

Over the next four years, James shuttled between his mother's court in Paris, the residence of his sister, the Duchess of Orange, in The Hague, and the island of Jersey, which continued to recognize the Stuarts as its rulers. He also supported Charles II in preparing for his campaign in Scotland and tried to settle his financial problems by finding a fairly wealthy bride. When these plans failed, and his brother's Scottish campaign ended in defeat, the prince decided to join the French army in 1652. Fighting under the command of Viscount Turenne, James gained valuable experience in military campaigns, which, as he wrote in his diary, he hoped to use in the future to support the Stuart attempts to regain the crown. He completed his service on the orders of his brother, who wanted Yakov to be with him. Later, Charles, hoping for strong support from the Habsburgs, ordered that he enlist in the Spanish army.

For Jacob, this meant that he would fight with his former comrades in arms. Despite this, he coped well with his duties as an officer in the Spanish army. He spent a lot of time in the Netherlands, which allowed him to maintain regular contact with his sister Maria. While staying at her court, Jacob had an affair with one of the ladies-in-waiting, Anna, the daughter of Edward Hyde, Charles' advisor. When it turned out that Anna was expecting a child, Yakov promised to marry her. After Karl found out about the promise, Yakov could no longer refuse his words.

The marriage caused a huge scandal, especially since very soon Jacob’s situation changed diametrically. After the restoration of the monarchy in England in 1660, he found himself heir to the English and Scottish thrones, as well as Lord High Admiral of the English fleet. Being the eldest living brother of the king, he became the second person in the country, and therefore could marry a woman significantly superior to Anna.

However, Charles was adamant, and the couple, who probably got married secretly in Holland, officially appeared at the altar in London in September 1660.

In subsequent years, Jacob, according to one Venetian diplomat, participated to a very small extent in state affairs and was primarily concerned with his own pleasures. He was known for a large number of mistresses and was a passionate hunter, although, unlike his brother, he avoided alcohol and never gambled. He also was almost not involved in politics, concentrating his attention on the fleet, of which he was appointed commander. As Lord High Admiral, he was responsible for the construction of new ships and the actions of the squadron during the military conflict with Holland. In September 1666, his brother entrusted him with monitoring the situation after the Great Fire of London - detachments under his command guarded public order in the city, and Jacob himself coordinated efforts to extinguish the fire.

Most likely, in the late 60s the prince began to lean towards Catholicism. It is unknown when exactly he converted to the Catholic faith, but since the mid-70s it has already been an open secret - the prince did not take part in Anglican services, he resigned as commander of the fleet so as not to take an oath that contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the Pope recognized him marriage concluded in 1673 with a Catholic, daughter of the Duke of Modena, Maria Beatrice. (Anna died back in 1671, leaving James II with two daughters: Mary and Anna.)

Given Jacob's position, the question of his religion was of political importance, especially in connection with the strengthening of anti-Catholic sentiment in England. In 1678, rumors appeared about a Catholic conspiracy (Papist Conspiracy), the purpose of which was supposedly to carry out a coup d'etat. Most of society and politicians, fearing the increasingly real threat of a Catholic monarch ascending the throne, tried to exclude James from the number of heirs. However, this met with resistance from Charles II, who blocked the corresponding changes to the laws. The political dispute surrounding James significantly influenced the formation of two political camps, which in the future came to dominate the British political scene: supporters of the king, who did not agree to exclude James, Duke of York, from among the heirs to the throne, began to be called Tories, and their opponents, who sought to secure a successor The king was a Protestant and was nicknamed Whigs.

Since the situation had reached a dead end, an appeal was prepared to Jacob, calling on him to return to the fold of the Anglican Church, but he refused. In this regard, the king agreed to remove the duke from public life for some time - in the spring of 1679, Jacob went to Brussels, and from October of the same year until the spring of 1682 he was in Edinburgh, where he even managed to gain some popularity.

Upon returning to London, he again began to participate in political life and naval affairs, but was unable to come to an agreement with opponents of Catholicism. When he became king in February 1685, the first weeks of his reign were fairly quiet. Moreover, the Parliament he convened was positive towards him, although this may have been due to the desire at all costs to avoid the civil war that would have broken out if the king had failed to pacify the rebellion led by the Earl of Argyll and Charles II's eldest illegitimate son James Scott, Duke of Monmouth , who declared himself a contender for the throne, and called Jacob a usurper. The rebellion was suppressed quite quickly - already in July the rebels were captured, sentenced to death and beheaded.

However, the “honeymoon” of the king and his subjects did not last long - the actions of the monarch, who decisively weakened anti-Catholic legislation, and conflicts between courtiers and high-ranking politicians acted to the detriment of the king. Gradually, a well-organized opposition began to form at court, which could count on the support of the royal son-in-law William, Duke of Orange. When it was announced that Maria Beatrice was pregnant, the situation escalated to the limit, and when the queen gave birth to a son, the opposition no longer intended to sit idly by. Seven of them (the so-called “Immortal Seven”) turned to William with an official request to launch a military invasion against England and seize power in the country. After a few weeks it became clear that the Duke was in fact ready for the occupation. However, this did not persuade Jacob to make concessions in relation to the increasingly strong opposition. The king, convinced that he was protected by providence (proof of which was supposedly the birth of his son and the fact that the first attempt to land William’s troops on the English coast ended in failure due to bad weather), could not understand that his former supporters and even his own daughters were abandoning him. In mid-December the situation deteriorated so much that he had to flee London. During his escape, he was recognized and captured, but a detachment loyal to him managed to recapture him. The king returned to the capital, but soon, in the face of an approaching enemy, he had to flee again. This time his retreat was covered by the Dutch. On December 23, 1688, he managed (apparently with the tacit consent of his son-in-law) to lead his “protectors” and escape to the coast, from where he sailed to France.

Armor of King James II. Richard Holden, 1686, Royal Arsenal, UK, Leeds

In Paris, Jacob’s wife, son and several of his most faithful associates were already waiting for him. The English refugees were placed in fairly comfortable conditions in the castle of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where the former monarch had to spend the rest of his life. True, the hospitality of Louis XIV was not disinterested. For the French king, the defeat of William's army was highly desirable, so in March 1689, James sailed to Ireland to lead the resistance forces there. The expedition ended in defeat. James, defeated by Orange forces at the Boyne, surrendered and returned to France.

JAMES II STEWART WAS THE LAST ABSOLUTE RULE OF ENGLAND AND THE LAST CATHOLIC ON THE ENGLISH THRONE. HE CONVERTED TO CATHOLICITY IN 1668 OR 1669, BUT KEPT IT A SECRET FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

He devoted the following years primarily to his family - in 1692 his youngest daughter, Louise Maria Teresa, was born - and to writing religious treatises and memoirs. Their reading shows that he considered his failures at the helm of power and the subsequent expulsion as retribution for misdeeds committed in his youth. He also never came to terms with the fact that his own daughters turned against him. When Louis XIV officially recognized William as King of England in 1697, James became so devout that his religious practices began to worry even his confessor, who feared for the former king's health, which was indeed deteriorating inexorably. In August 1701, he was overtaken by an illness that turned out to be his last. Yakov died on September 5 after two weeks of agony. His body was buried in the Benedictine Church in Paris on Rue Saint-Jacques. The funeral in Westminster Abbey, to which he, as crowned monarch of England, had the right to claim, never took place. During the French Revolution, the king's tomb was desecrated and his body was displayed for the amusement of onlookers for several months.

From the book I am a memoir! author Ivanov Yakov

YAKOV IVANOV. “I AM A MEMOIUR!” © 1993 Dedicated to those happy five years that ALMA MATER gives us free of charge! (author

From the book Near the Black Sea. Book III author Avdeev Mikhail Vasilievich

Healers of “Yaks” I once heard the temperamental minder Ivanov “enlighten” a newcomer: - Alexander Roy?.. Are you still asking? It’s the same as if a resident of Odessa didn’t know the Odessa Theater! And you're torturing about Roy! He is known throughout the fleet... Look how he

From the book Temporary Men and Favorites of the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. Book III author Birkin Kondraty

From the book Pioneers author author unknown

THE BIRTH OF THE "DRAWING BOOK OF SIBERIA" OF 1701 Back on November 18, 1698, Andrei Vinius, receiving from Remezov a large general drawing of the Siberian lands on the wall, gave him the order, upon returning to Tobolsk, to compile a new drawing book of the whole of Siberia and include in it copies "from those brought to

From the book Feeling the Elephant [Notes on the History of the Russian Internet] author Kuznetsov Sergey Yurievich

6. Yakov Krotov “We ​​Are Not There,” February 2001. Affectionate, dear uncle When I was little, I had an uncle. That is, I had four uncles of varying degrees of relationship, but now we will talk about one - a second cousin, it seems. His name was Maxim, and most of all I liked that at his home

From the book Great Tyumen Encyclopedia (About Tyumen and its Tyumen people) author Nemirov Miroslav Maratovich

Afanasyev, Yakov 1981, September. Y. Afanasyev enters the philological department of Tyumen University. From the very first year he became one of the most prominent personalities of this institution: he writes poetry, sings all sorts of junk music (later rock music), and is an activist in all sorts of other things.

From the book 100 great originals and eccentrics author Balandin Rudolf Konstantinovich

Yakov Bruce Yakov Bruce. Engraving from the 18th century. In 1875, in Kharkov, the “Primitive Bruce Calendar” was republished, as the title stated. This meant an exact repetition of the work of this author, who proposed a forecast of astronomical, economic and political, as well as

From the book Brief Encounters with the Great author Fedosyuk Yuri Alexandrovich

Yakov Flier Ya.V. Flier in Vienna (photo from 1946) In September 1946, VOKS sent a delegation to Austria to the 1st Congress of the Austro-Soviet Society, consisting of: Professor V. (head of the delegation), architect V.M. Kusakov, professor-neurologist V.K. Good, pianist Ya.V. Flier and in

From the book Portraits author Botvinnik Mikhail Moiseevich

Yakov ESTRIN Chess player He was a lawyer by training, but a chess player by vocation. Estrin was interested in everything about chess: history and theory of principles, funny episodes and rigorous analyses, tournaments and chess pedagogy, lectures and sessions, books... He traveled a lot, was active

From the book by Charles Perrault author Boyko Sergey Pavlovich

YAKOV ROKHLIN I first saw Yakov Gerasimovich Rokhlin in August 1924 at the Petrograd chess meeting, which was housed in two small rooms of the Vladimir gambling club. In the autumn of the same year, the All-Russian Chess Union was closed and a new era began in

From the book Stalin's Daughter. Last interview author Alliluyeva Svetlana Iosifovna

1701–1702 This year began the War of the Spanish Succession, which would continue for 13 long years. By concluding the Peace of Ryswick in 1697, Louis XIV was confident that he would soon reward himself with major acquisitions at the expense of the Spanish crown. The last representative of the Spanish

From the book Return to Vysotsky author Carriers Valery Kuzmich

Yakov From an interview with Svetlana Alliluyeva: “We all loved Yasha very much. Now, from the height of my years and experience, it seems to me that he could become my only friend, a close person for life. He was much older than all of us children, and thus attracted my attention, and

From the book Imaginary Sonnets [collection] author Lee-Hamilton Eugene

Yakov Bezrodny We studied with Volodya Vysotsky in the same Moscow school - then it was for men - in parallel classes. We were part of the same school friendly group. We all lived practically nearby at that time: Volodya - on Bolshoy Karetny, Volodya Akimov - in Karetny Ryad, Garik

From the book Maria de Medici by Carmona Michelle

79. Captain Kidd? - to his gold (1701) I am enslaved by the cursed treasure. I dreamed: he was tied to my neck, and doubloons and guineas were dragging me to the bottom, securely holding me in full. I was drowning, and from all sides Drowned men swam towards me, growing ferocious at the sight of the long-awaited trophy, clinging to

From the book by Rubens by Avermat Roger

1633: a sad year for the Queen Mother Even when the Treaty of Beziers was being discussed, the king, through his messengers, tried to find out the situation with the prince’s marriage. Both Gaston and Puylorand answered evasively, but before the execution, the Duke de Montmorency ordered one of his friends to tell about

From the author's book

XIII REVERSE SIDE OF THE MEDAL (1630–1633) On the sixth of December, the bells of Sint-Jakobskerk joyfully rang in honor of the newlyweds - Peter Paul Rubens and his young wife. A few days later, Charles I signed a decree elevating the artist to the rank of Knight of the Order of the Golden Spur. For that

So, in 1662, Charles II Stuart married Catherine, Infanta of Portugal. This marriage turned out to be childless, which is why, after the death of Charles II, his throne was inherited by his only brother, the Duke of York, who ascended the throne of Great Britain under the name James II.

Unfortunately, James II, a devout Catholic, was a man wholly devoted to the interests of the Roman Catholic Church (papacy), and all the efforts of Charles II to force him to change his beliefs came to nothing. In turn, the English Parliament made every effort to convince Charles II of the need to change his last will and deprive his brother of the right of succession to the throne on the grounds that a Catholic king was as unacceptable to Great Britain as a Protestant king was to France or Spain.

However, Charles II, who doted on his brother and tried by all means to delay the resolution of the issue, was very successful in this and died calmly, without giving consent to such an act. Therefore, no one could resist the proclamation of James II as king and his accession to the throne of Great Britain.

Dreaming of the return of the papacy, James II appointed a papist professor at Oxford, openly received the papal legate, persuaded several of his papists to convert to Catholicism, and also intended to cancel the measures directed against the papists, in other words, he committed actions that caused discontent and murmur among the people. It should be noted that during the period of exile, Charles II had a son, who was named James and given the title of Duke of Monmouth. This James, objecting to being considered a bastard or illegitimate son, in view of Charles II.'s promise to marry his mother, laid claim to the English throne. Gathering a small force, in 1685 he landed on the west coast of England and proclaimed himself king. Having suffered, however, defeat at the very first clash with the royal troops, he was captured, taken to the Tower and a few days later publicly beheaded on Tower Hill, which greatly contributed to strengthening the position of the king, who was ready to implement the Roman policy with even greater firmness. -Catholic Church.

The wife of James II, Queen Mary, from the Modena family, did not please him for a long time with the appearance of an heir. Finally, on June 10, 1688, the queen was successfully resolved by the prince, whom the king named James, granting him the title of Prince of Wales. The king notified all those in power in neighboring states about the joyful event, causing rejoicing among the papists, who believed that the time was not far off when Great Britain would return to the fold of the Catholic Church. The endless stream of congratulations addressed to the royal couple, at first glance, was encouraging: it seemed that all the English were happy to consider the newborn prince as their future ruler. In reality, the most vile fakes were spread, containing speculation about the prince’s belated birth. In order to suppress such misunderstandings, on October 27, 1688, the king ordered all courtiers who were present in the palace during the birth to appear in order to certify the birth of a son, whom he, James II, considered his legal heir.

From his first marriage, the king had two daughters, raised in the traditions of the Anglican Church. The eldest, Maria, born in 1662, married William, Prince of Orange in 1677, and the youngest, Anna, born in 1664, married George, Prince of Denmark in 1683. William, Prince of Orange, born in 1650, the son of Mary, daughter of the beheaded King Charles I, could rightfully lay claim to the English throne, so some lords and princes of the church, having entered into secret negotiations with him, conveyed to him the news of the danger threatening England of falling again under the influence of the Pope, while expressing unequivocal concern about the illegal deprivation of William's inheritance rights to the British crown. William of Orange, instantly realizing what they were getting at, turned for help to the united provinces of the Netherlands, who immediately equipped him with a navy, and already in November 1688 the prince departed from the Dutch harbor, initially heading north to send the spies on the wrong trail , and only then turned to the west, towards the strait. For some time the flotilla moved along the English coast in the same direction, while dispatches were constantly sent from all English ports in London with messages about the passage of the Dutch fleet. There was no way for couriers to get into the city without passing the Great London Bridge, which is why the bridge was crowded both with couriers following almost one after another, and with curious townspeople greedy for news. The size of William of Orange's flotilla easily convinced the Londoners of the pointlessness of any resistance on the part of James II, which is why they decided to make every effort to prevent an armed conflict. Similar work was carried out in the army of King James, where a decision was made to refuse to assist him in the fight against the prince, who landed in the west of England and headed straight towards London. Abandoned by everyone, James the Second sent the queen and her six-month-old child to France, and then he himself followed them.

The flight of the king gave Parliament the opportunity to declare that the king had abdicated the throne, and on February 13, 1689, the Prince of Orange was proclaimed king of Great Britain under the name of William III. The people did not hide their joy. Bonfires blazed in the city, on which the jubilant crowd, with wild gloating, burned images of the Pope and the Jesuit Petersen, confessor and adviser to James II. Nostradamus mentions this in the 80th quatrain of the 3rd century:

"The unworthy will be expelled from the English throne,
His advisor will be thrown into the fire out of gloating:
His supporters will act so cleverly
That Bastard will be half approved.”

As for the expression “Unworthy” (as Nostradamus calls King James II), it should be noted that this expression occurs in the first centuries editions published in France, but in later editions and, especially those published in England, instead of “Unworthy” the expression “Worthy” appeared. By the way, the poetic meter allows for both, according to the assessment of the king by different parties: the most worthy of all contenders for the throne, from the point of view of the papists, James II remained unworthy for the Protestants.

Let us turn to the 89th quatrain of the 4th century:

“The armed militia of London entered into a secret conspiracy
During an exchange of views on the bridge regarding the enterprise being prepared against their king,
His satellites will taste death,
Another king will be elected, blond, originally from Frisia.”

Born on November 14, 1650 in The Hague, King William came from a province called Holland, or West Frisia. In his youth, he may have had blond hair, but there may also be an allusion to his name (Guillaume is spelled "Guillaume" in French). As for the unfortunate companions of King James II, everyone who became papists to please him had to, following his sad example, leave England and emigrate to Ireland, where, as a result of a bloody war, they were finally broken by King William, and most of them cost a life. James II managed to escape this time too; he went to France, where he died in September 1701. And six months later, on March 8, 1702, King William also passed away after him. Thus, none of the Protestant descendants of the beheaded King Charles I remained alive, with the exception of Princess Anne, who was at that time married to George, Prince of Denmark, and who was immediately proclaimed Queen of Great Britain.
Her only son, William, Duke of Gloucester, who showed the most brilliant hopes, to everyone's surprise, died suddenly in his eleventh year on July 30, 1700, i.e. three years before this event. The death of his son prompted the then living King William to show commendable concern for preserving the right of succession to the throne for the Protestant line of the Stuart dynasty, forever excluding the papists from it. Thus, on March 22, 1701, Parliament passed a law according to which, in the event of the extinction of the line of Charles and the Protestant line of King James I, in the absence of direct heirs of William and Anna, the throne of Great Britain would be inherited by representatives of the line of Elizabeth in the person of Elizabeth’s then still living daughter, Sophia, Elector Brunswick, Luneburg and Hanover with all its descendants, considered as the nearest and legitimate heirs of the British crown.

Thus, this legal succession along the Protestant line was subsequently once again confirmed
Parliament during the reign of Queen Anne, in particular in 1707, when England and Scotland were solemnly transformed into a single state with a single parliament, the adopted order of succession was legally assigned to Elector Sophia and her direct descendants. Note that Elector Sophia, granddaughter of King James I and mother of King George I, who died in May 1714 in her eighty-fourth year, shortly before the death of Queen Anne, was born on October 13, 1630 in The Hague (Holland or West Frisia), in other words in the same place as King William, a Frisian by birth. Thus, Nostradamus’s prediction was fulfilled twice: the first time in the person of the king, and the second time in the person of the one whom he appointed as his heir.
Note that England, a country where the right of succession to the throne is regulated by the law of inheritance, twice found itself in such a crisis that Parliament, seeing no other way out, was forced to make a decision to legislate the right to the British crown (indicating a specific person) behind the Protestant line, setting religious affiliation as the main condition.

(James II) (1633–1701), in 1685–1688 king of England, Ireland and (as James VII) Scotland, the last English monarch of the Stuart dynasty in the direct male line. The son of King Charles I and Henrietta Maria, the younger brother of the future Charles II, James was born at St. James's Palace on October 14, 1633, receiving the title Duke of York in January 1634. After surrendering in 1646, he was captured by parliamentary troops, but in 1648 he managed to escape. At first, Jacob was in The Hague, and in 1649 he was reunited with his mother in Paris. In 1652, Jacob joined the French army, but in 1657 he was forced to go into service with the Spaniards, as this was demanded by his brother Charles, who had concluded an alliance with Spain. Jacob commanded the English contingent, which fought steadfastly against the French and did not give up their positions in the so-called. Battle of the Dunes (near Dunkirk) 14 June 1658. He returned to England in 1660, when the Restoration took place, along with his brother Charles II, who had ascended the throne, and was appointed Lord High Admiral. In this post, Yakov showed great zeal and a sincere desire to improve the condition of the navy. He also proved to be a good naval commander, as evidenced by his victories over the Dutch at Lowestoft in 1665 and at Southwold Bay in 1672. New Amsterdam, which the British took from the Dutch in 1664, was named New York in his honor. In 1660 James married Anne Hyde, daughter of the Earl of Clarendon. Shortly before her death in 1671, she converted to Catholicism, which probably accelerated the conversion of James himself to Catholicism, which he openly announced in 1672. James was a supporter of a close alliance with Catholic France and naturally approved of the Declaration of Toleration issued by Charles in 1672. In 1673, in accordance with the Test Act, was forced to resign all his public posts. The hysteria that the alleged “Papist Conspiracy” caused in society made Jacob’s position in England very difficult, and although he retired to the Netherlands, the House of Commons adopted the so-called. The "Removal Bill", which was supposed to prevent his ascension to the throne. However, this bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and when Charles died in 1685, James became king (as James II) with a parliament that was ready to cooperate with him on all issues except one: relief for Catholics and their admission to public office. However, James, sincere, but stubborn and straightforward in character, decided to patronize the Catholics with all the means at his disposal. Repressive policies and the birth of a son (James Stuart) by James's second wife, the Catholic Mary of Modena, after which many began to fear that the English crown would pass to the Catholic dynasty, hastened the invitation sent by a group of conspirators to his son-in-law, William of Orange, to come to England and rule it in as a king. Few people sympathized with William as a future king, but by his reluctance to give up patronage of Catholics, James missed the chance to reconcile the English nobility with himself and was forced to flee to France. With the support of France, he tried to regain his throne by landing in Ireland and relying on the local Catholics, but was defeated on the Boyne River on July 1, 1690. Louis XIV gave James a residence in Saint-Germain-en-Laye near Paris, where he remained until his death. death on September 6, 1701. Mary and Anna, daughters of James from his first wife (both of them were raised as Protestants at the insistence of their brother Charles), became queens of England, the first ruled jointly with her husband William III. His son James (James Stuart), who claimed the throne as James III, is known to history as the Old Pretender.

As the second son of the King of England, James bore the title Duke of York. The years of his childhood and youth fell on the era of the English Revolution. During the First Civil War, the prince was next to his father. After the defeat of the royalists (1646), Jacob found himself under the supervision of parliament, but later it was possible to organize his escape to Holland. The Duke of York, his sisters and Queen Henrietta Maria found refuge in France. Having matured, Jacob entered military service with the King of France. He proved himself to be a brave warrior, under the command of Marshal Turenne he participated in the suppression of the Fronde, and later in the war with Spain. In 1655, Mazarin's government entered into an agreement with Cromwell and members of the English royal family were forced to leave France. The Duke of York entered Spanish service: he commanded a regiment of English and Irish emigrants stationed in Flanders.

In 1660, the monarchy was restored in England and Charles II Stuart became king. The Duke of York returned to his homeland and headed the English Admiralty. Under his leadership, measures were taken to reorganize the maritime department. The renewed British fleet performed well during the Anglo-Dutch wars. The Duke himself took part in naval battles during the wars with the Dutch. Commanding the fleet, in 1665 he defeated Admiral Ondam, and in 1672 he fought with Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. Personal participation in hostilities gained Jacob popularity in England.

At the same time, the Duke of York's loyalty to the Catholic religion alienated the British, mostly Protestants, from him. His devotion to Catholicism is explained by both his upbringing and the circumstances of his life. James was convinced that the horrors of the revolution punished England for betraying Catholicism, and was grateful to the Catholic Church and the Catholic powers for the shelter they provided to the expelled Stuarts. While still in exile, James secretly became engaged to the Catholic Anna Hyde (1638-1671), daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, the closest adviser and later minister of Charles II. Anna was one of the court ladies of Mary Stuart, the wife of the ruler of Holland, William II of Orange. Returning to England, the Duke of York married her, although King Charles II objected to the marriage. Jacob Stuart and Anna Hyde had two daughters - Mary (1662-1694), who later became the wife of William III of Orange, and Anna (1665-1713), who married the Danish Prince George. In 1668, the Duke of York officially converted to Catholicism, but at the insistence of the king, both of his nieces - Anne and Mary - were raised in the Anglican faith. In 1671, Anna Hyde died, but Jacob remarried a Catholic - the daughter of the Duke of Modena, Maria (1658-1718).

A significant blow to the reputation of the Duke of York was the discovery of a conspiracy in 1679, during the investigation of which the Whigs accused him of preparing the murder of Charles II. The king was forced to order his brother to leave England, where a campaign began to deprive James of the right to inherit the throne. The Duke of York was forced to spend several months in Brussels; Then Charles II returned his younger brother from exile, but, not daring to allow him to live in London, appointed James as his viceroy in Scotland. In 1681, passions subsided a little, the disgraced Duke returned to London and actually headed the government in the last years of the reign of Charles II. It is with the influence of the Duke of York that the dissolution of parliament in 1681 is associated, which refused to recognize James as heir to the throne. By the time of the death of his elder brother, all the levers of power were in the hands of the Duke of York and he unhinderedly ascended the throne under the name of James II Stuart.

In general, English society reacted negatively to the new king, a well-known champion of absolute monarchy and a devoted papist. However, the accession of James II to the throne was not opposed. The newly convened parliament, for the most part, consisted of Tories, who were ready to support the king in the fight against the opposition Whigs. Using the support of parliament, James II decided to create a regular army and limited the freedom of the press by a number of decrees, which was supposed to curb the influence of the Whigs.

Just a few months after his accession to the throne, armed uprisings began in Britain against the power of James II. The Scots, led by Earl Archibald of Argyle (1629-1685), were the first to rise up against the new king in May 1685. The rebels hoped to raise all of Southern (valley) and Northern (mountainous) Scotland against the Catholic king and the English authorities. However, there was no general uprising; the forces of the rebels turned out to be too weak and were quickly defeated. The conspirators, including Argyll, were captured and executed.

In June 1685, a rebellion broke out in the southwestern English counties of Devonshire, Somersetshire and Dorsetshire under the leadership of the Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of Charles II. Even during his father's lifetime, the Whigs predicted Monmouth for the throne. In addition to the Whigs, local peasants and artisans came over to his side in large numbers. As the leader of the uprising, Monmouth showed indecisiveness, missed the time to march on London and gave James II the opportunity to gather superior military forces. On July 6, 1685, in a battle near the town of Bridgewater in Somersetshire, the rebels suffered a crushing defeat. Monmouth was captured and soon executed.

The successful suppression of the rebellions increased the king's self-confidence. James II openly began to pursue absolutist policies. A wave of terror overtook the former rebels, more than a hundred people were executed, eight hundred were sent to the West Indies on plantations. The basis of the king's power was a permanent army of thirty thousand, the number of which was soon increased to 40 thousand people. Not only the British, but also foreign mercenaries served in it. In November 1685, parliament was dissolved.

Best of the day

In foreign policy, James II tried to pursue an independent policy and, unlike his older brother, did not look back at powerful France. Being the father-in-law of the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange and considering him as a future heir, he was wary of French plans of conquest in the Netherlands. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes was used by James II for pragmatic purposes. Despite the displeasure of Louis XIV, Bourbon granted refuge in England to many wealthy French Huguenots who left France after 1685.

Being a zealous Catholic, the king sought to equalize the rights of his subjects - Protestants and Catholics. He got judges to recognize the right to suspend laws that prohibited Catholics from holding official positions. As a result, Catholics began to occupy military and judicial positions. The king spared no effort and money on Catholic preaching in the country: Catholic priests returned to England, Jesuit schools appeared in London. James II did not seek an immediate and complete conversion of the country to Catholicism; his relations with Pope Innocent XI were cool, but the spread of Catholicism was viewed with suspicion by his subjects.

The “Declaration of Toleration” of April 2, 1687 abolished the repressive laws that had previously been issued in England against all dissenters, including Catholics. In English society, the act was perceived as another step towards restoring the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, towards the transformation of Catholicism into the state religion. The declaration, repeated in 1688, caused a wave of protest from the Tory nobles, most of whom belonged to the Church of England. The bishops of the Anglican Church addressed the king with a petition expressing their disagreement with the religious policy of the monarch. In response, James II ordered the arrest of seven bishops and accused them of distributing anti-royal pamphlets. This case rallied the Tories and Whig oppositionists against the king. The protest spread not only to London, but also to the counties.

The restoration of Catholicism was opposed by wide sections of English society, primarily by the priests of the Church of England and the Puritan bourgeoisie, who had been fighting the Roman Curia for decades. Even conservative landlords feared that they would have to return the secularized lands of Catholic monasteries. Catholicism for the British was a foreign religion - the religion of the French and Spaniards, with whom England had been at enmity for centuries. Thus, on anti-Catholic grounds, an alliance was formed against the king, which united representatives of the most diverse political and religious movements. Everyone wanted to get rid of the papist king as quickly as possible.

On June 10, 1688, Queen Mary of Modena gave birth to James II's heir, Prince James (James). This event seriously changed the political balance of power. If earlier the eldest daughter of James II, the Protestant Mary, and her Protestant husband William of Orange were considered the heir to the throne, then with the advent of an heir, whose upbringing would be carried out by Catholics, the prospect of England returning to Catholicism began to seem quite real. In the summer of 1688, almost the entire nobility took up arms against the king, with the exception of a small layer of Catholics. James II tried to reach a compromise with the opposition, announcing free elections to parliament, and to reconcile with the Anglican bishops, but his efforts were too late.

On June 30, 1688, the leaders of the Whigs and Tories turned to the son-in-law of James II, Prince William III of Orange, Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, with an invitation to come to England with an army and, together with his wife Mary, the daughter of James II, to take the royal throne, guaranteeing his subjects the preservation of religion and the rights of parliament. This coup plan involved changing the monarch with maximum respect for legitimate forms, through a “family reshuffle” of the reigning persons. Having recruited a mercenary army of twelve thousand, in early November 1688, Prince William landed in Torbay, one of the harbors in southwest England. On November 8, he entered the city of Exeter and from there headed for London.

Officers and soldiers of the royal army went over to William's side, and the courtiers did the same. Princess Anne supported the claims of sister Mary and her husband. In the north, in Cheshire and Nottinghamshire, uprisings began against the authority of James II. All major cities in England supported the invasion. In December 1688, James II was forced to flee to France, where his wife and son were sent in advance. Louis XIV provided the exile with the Saint-Germain Palace and provided a generous allowance. Mary III Stuart and William III of Orange became the new kings of England and Scotland.

Overthrown from the throne, Jacob did not give up hopes of regaining power. France, which was waging a war with England for the Palatinate inheritance, provided support to the deposed king. In 1689, James II sailed to Ireland and roused the country's Catholic population against William III, but his forces were defeated in 1690. In 1691, France's attempt to support James II with an amphibious landing ended in the defeat of the French fleet. Subsequently, the former English king tried to organize a pan-European alliance against William III, but Louis XIV, who concluded the Peace of Ryswick with England in 1697, refused to support the claims of James II.

In the last years of his life, James II completely turned to religion, spending most of his time in Parisian monasteries. He was distinguished by a stern and domineering character. During military campaigns he showed personal courage. Unlike his older brother Charles II, who was ready to make compromises in order to maintain power, James II, under any circumstances, remained faithful to his principles, beliefs, word and friends. After his death he was buried in the parish church of Saint-Germain. During the French Revolution, the burial place of James II was destroyed.

Share this article:

Similar articles

April 17, 2015
How to spend a memorial day correctly - Radonitsa What happens to the deceased on parent’s day

April 17, 2015
Mineral exploration: how geological exploration is carried out

April 17, 2015
Businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili: biography, activities and interesting facts

April 17, 2015
An alarm “call” to the governor of Perm Reshetnikov Maxim Reshetnikov biography personal life