Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

Soon after the last mentioned event, there arose a discussion among the apostles, as to who should have the highest rank in the administration of the government of the Messiah’s kingdom, when it should be finally triumphantly established. The question shows how pitiably deficient they still were, in a proper understanding of the nature of the cause to which they were devoted; but the details of this circumstance may be deferred to a more appropriate place, under the lives of the persons, who, by their claims, afterwards originated a similar discussion, in connection with which this may be most properly mentioned. However, it cannot be amiss to remark here, that the very fact of such a discussion having arisen, shows, that no one supposed that, from the peculiar distinctions already conferred on Peter, he was entitled to the assumption of anything like power over the rest of the twelve, or that anything else than a peculiar regard of Christ for him, and a confidence in his zeal and ability to advance the great cause, was expressed in his late honorable and affectionate declaration to him. The occurrence of this discussion is also a high and satisfactory proof of Peter’s modest and unassuming disposition; for had he maintained among the apostles the authority and rank which his Master’s decided preference might seem to warrant, these high pretensions of the sons of Zebedee would not have been thus put forward against one so secure in Christ’s favor by high talents, and long habits of close intimacy.

THE RULE OF BROTHERLY FORBEARANCE.

The next occasion on which the name of Peter is mentioned in the gospels, is his asking Jesus, “how many times he should forgive an offending brother? If the brother should repeat the offense seven times, should he each time accord him the forgiveness asked?” This question was suggested to Peter’s mind, by the rules which Christ had just been giving his disciples, for the preservation of harmony, and for the redress of mutual grievances among them. His charge to them on this subject, injoined the repeated exercise of forbearance towards a brother who had trespassed, and urged the surrender of every imagined right of private redress, to the authority and sanction of the common assembly of the apostles. The absolute necessity of some such rule, for the very existence of the apostles’ union, was plain enough. They were men, with all the passions and frailties of common, uneducated men, and with all the peculiar, fervid energy, which characterizes the physiology of the races of south-western Asia. From the constant attrition of such materials, no doubt individually discordant in temperament and constitution, how could it be hoped, that in the common course of things, there would not arise frequent bursts of human passion, to mar or hinder the divine work which brought them together? With a most wise providence for these liabilities to disagreement, Jesus had just arranged a principle of reference and quiet decision, in all cases of dispute in which the bond of Christian fellowship would be strained or broken. His charge to them, all and each, was this: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, take with thee on thy second call, one or two more, that, according to the standard forms of the Mosaic law, by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall refuse to hear them, tell it at last to the common assembly of the apostles; and after they have given their decision in favor of the justice of the complaint and demand, if he still maintain his enmity and wrong against thee, thou art no longer held by the apostolic pledge to treat him with brotherly regard; but having slighted all friendly advice, and the common sentiment of the brethren, he has lost the privilege of their fellowship, and must be to thee as one of the low world around him——a heathen and an outcast Jew.” On this occasion, also, he renewed to them all, the commission to bind and loose, which he had before particularly delivered only to Peter. As he had, in speaking of the treatment, made abundant requisitions for the exercise of forbearance, without mentioning the proper limit to these acts of forgiveness, Peter now put his question: “If my brother sin against me seven times, and as often make the reparation which I may honestly ask, shall I continue to forgive him?” That is, “Shall I not seem, by these repeated acts of forbearance, at last to be offering him inducements to offend against one so placable? And if these transgressions are thus enormously multiplied, will it not be right that I should withhold the kind consideration which is made of so little account?” The answer of Jesus is, “I say to thee, not merely till seven times, but till seventy times seven.” That is, “To your forbearance towards an erring and returning Christian brother, there should be no limit but his own obstinate adhesion to his error. In coming out from the world to follow me, you have given up your natural rights to avenge, either legally or personally, those injuries which pass the bounds of common forbearance. The preservation of perfect harmony in the new community to which you have joined yourself, is of so much importance to the triumphant advancement of our cause, as to require justly all these sacrifices of personal ill-will.” With his usual readiness in securing an abiding remembrance of his great leading rules of action, Jesus, on this occasion, concluded the subject with illustrating the principle, by a beautiful parable or story; a mode of instruction, far more impressive to the glowing imagination of the oriental, than of the more calculating genius of colder races.

This inquiry may have been suggested to Peter by a remark made by Christ, which is not given by Matthew as by Luke, (xvii. 4.) “If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times turn again, &c. thou shalt forgive him.” So Maldorat suggests, but it is certainly very hard to bring these two accounts to a minute harmony, and I should much prefer to consider Luke as having given a general statement of Christ’s doctrine, without referring to the occasion or circumstances, while Matthew has given a more distinct account of the whole matter. The discrepancy between the two accounts has seemed so great, that the French harmonists, Newcome, LeClerc, Macknight, Thirlwall, and Bloomfield, consider them as referring to totally different occasions,——that in Matthew occurring in Capernaum, but that in Luke, after his journey to Jerusalem to the feast of the tabernacles. But the utter absence of all chronological order in the greater part of Luke’s gospel, is enough to make us suspect, that the event he alludes to may coincide with that of Matthew’s story, since the amount of the precept, and the general form of expression, is the same in both cases. This is the view taken by Rosenmueller, Kuinoel, Vater, Clarke, Paulus, and which seems to be further justified by the consideration, that the repetition of the precept must have been entirely unnecessary, after having been so clearly laid down, and so fully re-examined in answer to Peter’s inquiry, as given by Matthew.

Seven times.——This number was a general expression among the Hebrews for a frequent repetition, and was perfectly vague and indefinite as to the number of repetitions, as is shown in many instances in the Bible where it occurs. Seventy times seven, was another expression of the recurrences carried to a superlative number, and is also a standard Hebraism, (as in Genesis iv. 24.) See Poole, Lightfoot, Clarke, Scott, and other commentators, for Rabbinical illustrations of these phrases.

A heathen and an outcast.——This latter expression I have chosen, as giving best the full force of the name publican, which designated a class of men among the Jews, who were considered by all around them as having renounced national pride, honor and religion, for the base purpose of worldly gain; serving under the Roman government as tax-gatherers, that is, hiring the taxes of a district, which they took by paying the government a definite sum, calculating to make a rich profit on the bargain by systematic extortion and oppression. The name, therefore, was nearly synonymous with the modern word renegade,——one who, for base motives, has renounced the creed and customs of his fathers.

THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.

The occurrence which occasioned this discussion, took place at Capernaum, where Jesus seems to have resided with his apostles for some time after his northern tour to Caesarea Philippi, giving them, as opportunity suggested, a great number and variety of practical instructions. At length he started with them, on his last journey to Jerusalem, the only one which is recorded by the first three evangelists, although John gives us accounts of three previous visits to the Jewish capital. On this journey, while he was passing on to Jerusalem, by a somewhat circuitous course, through that portion of Judea which lies east of the Jordan, he had taken occasion to remark, (in connection with the disappointment of the rich young man, who could not give up his wealth for the sake of the gospel,) how hard it was for those that had riches, and put their trust in them, to join heartily in the promotion of the cause of Christ, or share in the honors of its success. Peter, then, speaking for himself and the faithful few who had followed Jesus thus far through many trials, to the risk and loss of much worldly profit, reminded Jesus of what they had given up for his sake. “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?” The solemn and generous assurance of Jesus, in reply, was, that those who had followed him thus, should, in the final establishment of his kingdom, when he should receive the glories of his triumph, share in the highest gifts which he, conqueror of all, could bestow. Then, those who had forsaken kindred and lands for his sake, should find all these sacrifices made up to them, in the enjoyment of rewards incalculably beyond those earthly comforts in value.

This conversation took place, just about as they were passing the Jordan, into the western section of Judea, near the spot where Joshua and the Israelitish host of old passed over to the conquest of Canaan. A little before they reached Jericho, Jesus took a private opportunity to renew to the twelve his oft repeated warning of the awful events, now soon to happen after his entry into Jerusalem. “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And they shall deliver him to the heathen, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him; and the third day, he shall rise again.” Yet, distinct as was this declaration, and full as the prediction was in these shocking particulars, Luke assures us, that “they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Now, we cannot easily suppose that they believed that he, to whom they had so heartily and confidently devoted their lives and fortunes, was trying their feelings by an unnecessary fiction, so painful in its details. The only just supposition which we can make, then, is that they explained all these predictions to themselves, in a way best accordant with their own notions of the kingdom which the Messiah was to found, and on the hope of whose success they had staked all. The account of his betrayal, ill-treatment, and disgraceful death, they could not literally interpret, as the real doom which awaited their glorious and mighty Lord; it could only mean, to them, that for a brief space, the foes of the Son of God were to gain a seeming triumph over the hosts that were to march against Jerusalem, to seat him on the throne of David. The traitorous heads of the Jewish faith, the members of the great Sanhedrim, the hypocritical Pharisees, and the lying, avaricious lawyers, would, through cowardice, selfishness, envy, jealousy, or some other meanness, basely conspire to support their compound tyranny, by attempting to crush the head of the new faith, with the help of their Roman masters, whom they would summon to the aid of their falling power. This unpatriotic and treacherous effort would for a time seem to be perfectly successful, but only long enough for the traitors to fill up the measure of their iniquities. Then, vain would be the combined efforts of priest and soldier,——of Jewish and of Roman power. Rising upon them, like life from the dead, the Son of God should burst forth in the might of his Father,——he should be revealed from heaven with ten thousand angels, and recalling his scattered friends, who might have been for a moment borne down before the iron hosts of Rome, he should sweep every foreign master, and every domestic religious tyrant, from Israel’s heritage, setting up a throne, whose sway should spread to the uttermost parts of the earth, displacing even the deep-rooted hold of Roman power. What then, would be the fate of the faithful Galileans, who, though few and feeble, had stood by him through evil and good report, risking all on his success? When the grinding tyranny of the old Sanhedrim had been overthrown, and chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, lawyers, and all, displaced from the administration, the chosen ones of his own early adoption, his countrymen, and intimate companions for years, would be rewarded, sitting on twelve thrones, judging the ransomed and victorious twelve tribes of Israel. Could they doubt their Lord’s ability for this glorious, this miraculous [♦]achievement? Had they not seen him maintain his claim for authority over the elements, over diseases, over the dark agencies of the demoniac powers, and over the mighty bonds of death itself? And could not the same power achieve the still less wonderful victory over the opposition of these unworthy foes? It was natural, then, that, with the long cherished hopes of these dazzling triumphs in their minds, the twelve apostles, though so often and so fully warned of approaching evils, should thus unsuspectingly persist in their mistake, giving every terrible word of Jesus such a turn as would best confirm their baseless hopes. Even Peter, already sternly rebuked for his forward effort to exalt the ambition of Jesus, above even the temporary disgrace which he seemed to foreordain for himself,——and so favored with the private instructions and counsels of his master, thus erred,——even James and John, also sharers in the high confidence and favor of Jesus, though thus favored and taught, were immediately after brought under his deserved censure for their presumptuous claims for the ascendency, which so moved the wrath of the jealous apostles, who were all alike involved in this monstrous and palpable misconception. Nor yet can we justly wonder at the infatuation to which they were thus blindly given up, knowing as we do, that, in countless instances, similar error has been committed on similar subjects, by men similarly influenced. What Biblical commentary, interpretation, introduction, harmony, or criticism, from the earliest Christian or Rabbinic fathers, to the theological schemer of the latest octavo, does not bear sad witness on its pages, to the wonderful infatuation which can force upon the plainest and clearest declaration, a version elaborately figurative or painfully literal, just as may most comfortably cherish and confirm a doctrine, or notion, or prejudice, which the writer would fain “add to the things which are written in the book?” Can it be reasonably hoped, then, that this untaught effort to draw out the historical truth of the gospel, will be an exception to this harshly true judgment on the good, the learned, and the critical of past ages?

[♦] “achievment” replaced with “achievement”