Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

There is reason to suppose, that in accordance with the established principles of parental duty among the Jews, he had learned the rudiments of the knowledge of the Mosaic law; for a proverbial sentence of the religious teachers of the nation, ranked among the vilest of mankind, that Jew, who suffered a son to grow up without being educated in the first principles, at least, of his national religion. But that his knowledge, at the time when he first became a disciple of Jesus, extended beyond a barely respectable degree of information on religious matters, there is no ground for believing; and though there is nothing which directly contradicts the idea that he may have known the alphabet, or have made some trifling advances in literary knowledge,——yet the manner in which he, together with Peter, was spoken of by the proud members of the Sanhedrim, seems to imply that they did not pretend to any knowledge whatever of literature. And the terms in which both Jesus and his disciples are constantly alluded to by the learned scribes and Pharisees, seem to show that they were all considered as utterly destitute of literary education, though, by reason of that very ignorance, they were objects of the greatest wonder to all who saw their striking displays of a religious knowledge, utterly unaccountable by a reference to anything that was known of their means of arriving at such intellectual eminence. Indeed, there seems to have been a distinct design on the part of Christ, to select for his great purpose, men whose minds were wholly free from that pride of opinion and learned arrogance, almost inseparable from the constitutions of those who had been regularly trained in the subtleties of a slavish system of theology and law. He did not seek among the trained and drilled scholars of the formal routine of Jewish dogmatism, for the instruments of regenerating a people and a world,——but among the bold, active, and intelligent, yet uneducated Galileans, whose provincial peculiarities and rudeness, moreover, in a high degree incapacitated them from taking rank among the polished scholars of the Jewish capital. Thus was it, that on the followers of Christ, could never he put the stigma of mere theological disputants; and all the gifts of knowledge, and the graces of mental power, which they displayed under his divine teachings, were totally free from the slightest suspicion of any other than a miraculous origin. Some have, indeed, attempted to conjecture, from the alleged elegance of John’s style in his gospel and epistles, that he had early received a finished education, in some one of the provincial Jewish colleges; and have even gone so far as to suggest, that probably Jairus, “the ruler of the synagogue” in Capernaum, or more properly, “the head of the school of the law,” had been his instructor,——a guess of most remarkable profundity, but one that, besides lacking all sort of evidence or probability, is furthermore made totally unnecessary, by the indubitable fact, that no signs of any such perfection of style are noticeable in any of the writings of John, so as to require any elaborate hypothesis of this kind to explain them. The greatest probability is, that all his knowledge, both of Hebrew literature and the Greek language, was acquired after the beginning of his apostolic course.

HIS NAME.

The Jews were accustomed, like most of the ancient nations of the east, to confer upon their children significant names, which were made to refer to some circumstance connected with the person’s prospects, or the hopes of his parents respecting him. In their son’s name, probably Zebedee and Salome designed to express some idea auspicious of his progress and character in after life. The name “John,” is not only common in the New Testament, but also occurs in the Hebrew scriptures in the original form “Johanan,” which bears the happy signification of “the favor of Jehovah,” or, “favored by Jehovah.” They probably had this meaning in mind when they gave the name to him, and on that account preferred it to one of less hopeful religious character; but to suppose, as some commentators have, that in conferring it, they were indued with a prophetic spirit, which for the moment directed them to the choice of an appellation expressive of the high destiny of a chosen, favored herald of the grace of God, to Israel and to the Gentiles,——is a conjecture too absurdly wild to be entertained by a sober and discreet critic for a moment. Yet there are some, who, in the rage for finding a deep meaning in the simplest matters, interpret this simple, common name, as prophetically expressive of the beginning of the reign of grace, and of the abrogation of the formal law of Moses, first announced by John the Baptist, whose testimony was first fully recorded in the gospel of John the Apostle. Such idle speculations, however, serve no useful purpose, and only bring suspicion upon more rational investigations in the same department.

HIS CALL AND DISCIPLESHIP.

The first introduction of John to Jesus, appears to be distinctly, though modestly, described by himself, in the first chapter of his gospel, where he has evidently designated himself in the third person, as “the other disciple” of John the Baptist, who accompanied Andrew on his first visit to Jesus. After this introduction above narrated, he seems to have remained near the newly found Messiah for some days, being of course, included among those disciples who were present at the marriage in Cana. He appears to have returned, soon after, to his avocation on the lake, where he, for some time, appears to have followed the business in which he had been brought up, till the word of his already adopted Master came to summon him to the actual duties of the discipleship. On the journeys that followed this call, he was engaged in no act of importance, in which he was not also associated with those disciples, in whose lives these incidents have been already fully described. On one occasion however, a solitary instance is recorded by Luke, of a remark made by John, during a conversation which took place in Capernaum, after the return from the mission through Galilee, and not long before the great journey to Jerusalem. It seems to have been at the time when Jesus was inculcating a child-like simplicity, as an essential characteristic of his followers; and the remark of John is, both by Mark and Luke, prefaced with the words,——“and John answered and said,”——though no very clear connection can be traced between what he said and the preceding words of Jesus. The passage however is interesting, as showing that John was not always most discreet in his regard for the peculiar honors of his Master,——and in the case which he refers to, had in his restrictive zeal, quite gone beyond the rules of action, by which Jesus expected him to be guided. The remark of John on this occasion was,——“Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.” This confession betrays a spirit still strongly under the influence of worldly feelings, manifesting a perfectly natural emotion of jealousy, at the thought of any intrusion, upon what he deemed the peculiar and exclusive privilege of himself and his eleven associates in the fellowship of Christ. The high commission of subduing the malign agencies of the demoniac powers, had been specially conferred on the elect twelve, when they first went forth on the apostolic errand. This divine power, John had supposed utterly above the reach of common men, and it was therefore with no small surprise, and moreover with some indignant jealousy, that he saw a nameless person, not enrolled in the sacred band, nor even pretending to follow in any part of their train, boldly and successfully using the name of Jesus Christ, as a charm to silence the powers of darkness, and to free the victims of their evil influences. This sort of feeling was not peculiar to John, but occurs wherever there arises a similar occasion to suggest it. It has been rife among the religious, as well as the worldly, in all ages; and not a month now passes when it is not openly manifested, marring by its low influences, the noblest schemes of Christian benevolence, as well as checking the advances of human ambition. So many there are who, though imbued in some degree with the high spirit of apostolic devotion, yet, when they have marked some great field of benevolence for their efforts, are apt to regard it as their own peculiar province, and are disposed to view any action in that department of exertion as an intrusion and an encroachment on their natural rights. This feeling is the worst characteristic of ultra-sectarianism,——a spirit which would “compass sea and land,” not merely “to gain one proselyte,” but also to hinder a religious rival from the attainment of a similar purpose,——a spirit which in its modes of manifestation, and in its results, is nearer to that of the demon it aspires to expel, than to that of Him in whose name it professes to work. But that such was not the spirit of Him who went about doing good, is seen in the mild, yet earnest reply with which he met the manifestation of this haughty and jealous exclusiveness in his beloved disciple. “Forbid him not; for there is no man who can do a miracle in my name, who will lightly speak evil of me. For he who is not against us is on our part.” And then referring to the previous train of his discourse, he went on to say,——“For he who shall give you a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, I tell you, indeed, he shall not lose his reward.” So simple were the means of manifesting a true regard for Christ, and so moderate were the services which would constitute a claim to his remembrance, and to a participation in the rights of his ministry. If the act of kindness or of apostolic ministration had been done in his name, and had answered its good purpose, this was enough to show that he who performed it was such a friend as, so far from speaking evil of Jesus, would insure the best glory of his name, though he had not attached himself in manner and form to the train of regular disciples. Jesus Christ did not require a formal profession of regular discipleship, as essential to the right of doing good in his name, or to the surety of a high and pure reward. How many are there among his professed followers in these times, who are “able to receive this saying?” There are few indeed, who, hearing it on any authority but his, would not feel disposed to reject it, at once, as a grievous heresy. Yet such was, unquestionably, the spirit, the word, and the practice of Jesus. It was enough for him to know that the weight of human woe, which called him forth on his errand of mercy, was lightened; and that the spirit before darkened and bound down by the powers of evil, was now brought out into glorious light and freedom. Most earnestly did he declare this solemn principle of catholic communion; and most distinctly did he reiterate it in a varied form. The simplest act of kindness done to the commissioned of Christ, would, of itself, constitute a certain claim to his divine favor. But, on the other hand, the least wilful injury of one sent forth from him, would at once insure the ruin of the perpetrator.

Soon after this solemn inculcation of universal charity, Jesus began to prepare his disciples for their great journey to Jerusalem; and at last having completed his preliminary arrangements, he went on his way, sending forward messengers, (James and John, as it would seem,) to secure a comfortable stopping-place, at a Samaritan village which lay on his road. These select emissaries accordingly proceeded in the execution of their honorable commission, and entering the village, announced to the inhabitants the approach of the far-famed Galilean prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who, being then on his way to attend the great annual feast in Jerusalem, would that night deign to honor their village with his divine presence;——all which appears to have been communicated by the two messengers, with a full sense of the importance of their commission, as well as of the dignity of him whose approach they announced. But the sturdy Samaritans had not yet forgotten the rigid principles of mutual exclusiveness, which had so long been maintained between them and the Jews, with all the combined bitterness of a national and a religious quarrel; and so they doggedly refused to open their doors in hospitality to one whose “face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.” At this manifestation of sectarian and sectional bitterness, the wrath of the messengers knew no bounds, and reporting their inhospitable and scornful rejection to Jesus, the two Boanerges, with a spirit quite literally accordant with their surname, inquired, “Lord! wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them as Elijah did?” The stern prophet of the days of Ahaziah, had called down fire from heaven to the destruction of two successive bands of the insolent myrmidons of the Samaritan king; and might not the wonder-doing Son of Man, with equal vindictiveness, commission his faithful followers to invoke the thunder on the inhospitable sectaries of the modern Samaritan race? But however this sort of summary justice might suit the wrathful piety of James and his “amiably gentle” brother, it was by Jesus deemed the offspring of a spirit too far from the forgiving benevolence of his gospel, to be passed by, unrebuked. He therefore turned reprovingly to these fierce “Sons of Thunder,” with the reply,——“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And thus silencing their forward, destructive zeal, he quietly turned aside from the inhospitable sectarians who had refused him admission, and found entertainment in another village, where the inhabitants were free from such notions of religious exclusiveness.

So idolatrous was the reference with which many of the Fathers and ancient theologians were accustomed to regard the apostles, that they would not allow that these chosen ones of Christ ever committed any sin whatever; at least, none after their calling to be disciples. Accordingly, the most ridiculous attempts have been made to justify or excuse the faults and errors of those apostles, who are mentioned in the New Testament as having committed any act contrary to the received standards of right. Among other circumstances, even Peter’s perjured denial of his Lord, has found stubborn defenders and apologists; and among the saintly commentators of both Papist and Protestant faiths, have been found some to stand up for the immaculate soundness of James and John, in this act of wicked and foolish zeal. Ambrose of Milan, in commenting on this passage, must needs maintain that their ferocity was in accordance with approved instances of a similar character in the Old Testament. “Nec discipuli peccant,” says he, “qui legem sequuntur;” and he then refers to the instance of extemporaneous vindictive justice in Phineas, as well as to that of Elijah, which was quoted by the sons of Zebedee themselves. He argues, that, since the apostles were indued with the same high privileges as the prophets, they were in this instance abundantly justified in appealing to such authority for similar acts of vengeance. He observes, moreover, that this presumption was still farther justified in them, by the name which they had received from Jesus; “being ‘sons of thunder,’ they might fairly suppose that fire would come down from heaven at their word.” But Lampe very properly remarks, that the prophets were clearly moved to these acts of wrathful justice, by the Holy Spirit, and thereby also, were justified in a vindictiveness, which might otherwise be pronounced cruel and bloody. The evidence of this spirit-guidance, those old prophets had, in the instantaneous fiery answer from heaven, to their denunciatory prayer; but on the other hand, in this case, the words of Jesus in reply to the Sons of Thunder, show that they were not actuated by a holy spirit, nor by the Holy Spirit, for he says to them, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of,”——which certainly implies that they were altogether mistaken in supposing that the spirit and power of Elijah rested on them, to authorize such wide-wasting and indiscriminate ruin of innocent and guilty,——women and children, as well as men, inhabiting the village; and he rebukes and condemns their conduct for the very reason that it was the result of an unholy and sinful spirit.

Yet, not only the Romish Ambrose, but also the Protestant Calvin, has, in his idolatrous reverence for the infallibility of the apostles, (an idolatry hardly less unchristian than the saint-worship against which he strove,) thought it necessary to condemn and rebuke Maldonado, as guilty of a detestable presumption, in declaring the sons of Zebedee to have been lifted up with a foolish arrogance. On the arguments by which Calvin justifies James and John, Lampe well remarks, that the great reformer uses a truly Jesuitical weapon, (propria vineta caedit Loyolita,) when he says that “they desired vengeance not for themselves, but for Christ; and were not led into error by any fault, but merely by ignorance of the spirit of the gospel and of Christ.” But was not this ignorance itself a sin, showing itself thus in the very face of all the oft-repeated admonitions of Jesus against this bloody spirit, even in his or any cause? and of all his inculcations of a universal rule of forbearance and forgiveness?

John is not mentioned again in the gospel history, until near the close of the Savior’s labors, when he was about to prepare his twelve chosen ones, for the great change which awaited their condition, by long and earnest instruction, and by prayer. In making the preliminary arrangements for this final meeting, John was sent along with Peter, to see that a place was provided for the entertainment. After this commission had been satisfactorily executed, they joined with Jesus and the rest of the twelve disciples in the Paschal feast, each taking a high place at the board, and John in particular reclining next to Jesus. As a testimony of the intimate affection between them, it is recorded by this apostle himself in his gospel, that during the feast he lay on Jesus’s breast,——a position which, though very awkward, and even impossible, in the modern style of conducting feasts in the sitting posture, was yet rendered both easy and natural, in the ancient mode, both Oriental and Roman, of reclining on couches around the table. Under these circumstances, those sharing the same part of the couch, whose feelings of affection led them most readily together,——such a position as that described by John, would occur very naturally and gracefully. It here, in connection with John’s own artless, but expressive sentence, mentioning himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, presents to the least imaginative mind, a most beautifully striking picture of the state of feeling between the young disciple and his Lord,——showing how closely their spirits were drawn together, in an affection of the most sacred and interesting character, far surpassing the paternal and filial relation in the high and pure nature of the feeling, because wholly removed from the mere animalities and instincts that form and modify so much of all natural love. The regard between these two beings was by no means essentially dependent on any striking similarity of mind or feeling. John had very little of that mild and gentle temperament which so decidedly characterized the Redeemer;——he had none of that spirit of meekness and forgiveness which Jesus so often and earnestly inculcated; but a fierce, fiery, thundering zeal, arising from a temperament, ardent alike in anger and in love. Nor was such a character at all discordant with the generality of those for whom Jesus seemed to feel a decided preference. There is no one among the apostolic band, whether Galilean or Hellenistic, of whose characters any definite idea is given, that does not seem to be marked most decidedly by the fiercer and harsher traits. Yet like those of all children of nature, the same hearts seem to glow, upon occasion, as readily with affectionate as with wrathful feeling, both, in many instances, combining in their affection for Jesus. The whole gospel record, as far as the twelve disciples are concerned, is a most satisfactory comment on the characteristics ascribed by Josephus to the whole Galilean race,——“ardent and fierce.” And this was the very temperament which recommended them before all men in the world, for the great work of laying the deep foundations of the Christian faith, amid opposition, hatred, confusion, and blood. And among these wild, but ardent dispositions, did even the mild spirit of the Redeemer find much that was congenial to its frame, as well as its purposes; for in them, his searching eye recognized faculties which, turned from the base ends of worldly strife and low, brawling contest, might be exalted, by a mere modification, and not eradication, to the great works of divine benevolence. The same temperament that once led the ardent Galileans into selfish quarrels, under the regenerating influences of a holy spirit, might be trained to a high devoted self-sacrifice for the good of others; and the valor which once led them to disregard danger and death in spiteful enmity, could, after an assimilation to the spirit of Jesus, be made equally energetic in the dangerous labors of the cause of universal love. Such is most clearly the spirit of the Galilean disciples, as far as any character can be recognized in the brief, artless sketches, incidentally given of them in the New Testament history. Nor is there any good reason to mark John as an exception to these harsher attributes. The idea, now so very common, of his softness and amiability, seems to have grown almost entirely out of the circumstance, that he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved;” as if the high spirit of the Redeemer could feel no sympathy with such traits as bravery, fierce energy, or even aspiring ambition. Tempted originally by the great source of evil, yet without sin, he himself knew by what spiritual revolutions the impulses which once led only to evil, could be made the guides to truth and love, and could see, even in the worst manifestations of that fiery ardor, the disguised germ of a holy zeal, which, under his long, anxious, prayerful care and cultivation, would become a tree of life, bringing forth fruits of good for nations. Even in these low, depraved mortals, therefore, he could find much to love,——nor is the circumstance of his affectionate regard, in itself, any proof that John was deficient in the most striking characteristics of his countrymen; and that he was not so, there is proof positive and unquestionable in those details of his own and his brother’s conduct, already given.

At this Paschal feast, lying, as described, on the bosom of Jesus, he passed the parting hours in most intimate communion with his already doomed Lord. And so close was their proximity, and so peculiarly favored was he, by the confidential conversation of Jesus, that when all the disciples were moved with painful doubt and surprise at the mysterious annunciation that there was a traitor among them, Peter himself, trusting more to the opportunities of John than to his own, made a sign to him to put to his Master a question, to which he would be more likely to receive an answer than anybody else. The beloved disciple, therefore, looking up from the bosom of Jesus, into his face, with the confidence of familiar affection, asked him, “Who is it, Lord?” And to his eager inquiry, was vouchsafed at once a most unhesitating and satisfactory reply, marking out, in the most definite manner, the person intended by his former dark allusion.