JOHN;
THE SON OF ZEBEDEE.
HIS CHARACTER.
This other son of Zebedee and of “thunder,” whenever any description of the apostles has been given, has been by most religious writers generally characterized as a mild, amiable person, and is thus figured in strong contrast with the bold and often bitter spirit of Peter. The circumstance that he is described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” has doubtless done much to cause the almost universal impression which has prevailed, as to the meekness of his disposition. But this is certainly without just reason; for there is no ground for supposing that any peculiar softness was essential to the formation of the character for which the Redeemer could feel a strong affection. On the contrary, the almost universal behavior of the apostolic band, seems to show that the natural characteristics which he marked as betraying in them the deeper qualities that would best fit them for his service, and qualify them as the sharers of his intimate instruction and affection, were more decidedly of the stern and fiery order, than of the meek and gentle. Nor is there any circumstance recorded of John, whether authentic or fabulous, that can justify the supposition that he was an exception to these general, natural characteristics of the apostles; but instances sufficiently numerous are given in the gospels, to make it clear, that he was not altogether the soft and gentle creature, that has been commonly presented as his true image.
It has been commonly supposed that he was the youngest of all the apostles; nor is there any reason to disbelieve an opinion harmonizing, as this does, with all that is recorded of him in the New Testament, as well as with the undivided voices of all tradition. That he was younger than James, may be reasonably concluded from the circumstance that he is always mentioned after him, though his importance in the history of the foundation of the Christian faith might seem to justify an inversion of this order; and in the life of James, it has already been represented as probable, that he too must have been quite young, being the son of a father who was still so much in the freshness of his vigor, as to endure the toils of a peculiarly laborious and dangerous business. On this point, also, the opinion even of tradition is entitled to some respect, on the ground taken by an author quoted in the life of Peter,——that though we consider tradition as a notorious liar, yet we may give some attention to its reports, because even a liar may sometimes speak the truth, where he has no object in deceiving us.
The youngest of the disciples.——All that can be said on this opinion is, that it is possible, and if the testimony of the Fathers were worth the slightest consideration on any historical question concerning the apostles, it might be called even probable; but no early writer alludes to his age at all, till Jerome, who very decidedly calls John, “the youngest of all the apostles.” Several later Fathers make the same assertion, but the voice of antiquity has already been shown to be worth very little, when it is not heard within three centuries of the events on which it offers its testimony. But at any rate the assertion of John’s juniority is not improbable.
A great deal of violent discussion has been lavished on the almost equally important question, whether John was ever married. The earliest established testimony on this point is that of Tertullian, who numbers John among those who had restrained themselves from matrimony for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Testimony as late as the third century, however, on an opinion which favored monastic views, is worth nothing. But on the strength of this, many Fathers have made great use of John, as an instance of celibacy, accordant with monastic principles. Epiphanius, Jerome and Augustin allude frequently to the circumstance, the latter Father in particular insisting that John was engaged to be married when he was called, but gave up the lady, to follow Jesus. Some ingenious modern theologians have even improved upon this so far as to maintain that the marriage of Cana in Galilee was that of John, but that he immediately left his wife after the miracle. (See Lampe, Prolegomena, I. i. 13, notes.)
HIS FAMILY AND BUSINESS.
The authentic history of the life of this apostle must also necessarily be very brief; most of the prominent incidents which concern him, having already been abundantly described in the preceding lives. But there are particulars which have not been so fully entered into, some of which concern this apostle exclusively, while in others he is mentioned only in conjunction with his brother and friends; and these may all, with great propriety, be more fully given in this life, since his eminence, his writings, and long protracted labors, make him a proper subject for a minute disquisition.
Being the son of Zebedee and Salome, as has already been mentioned in the life of his brother, he shared in the low fortunes and laborious life of a fisherman, on the lake of Gennesaret. This occupation indeed, did not necessarily imply the very lowest rank in society, as is evident from the fact that the Jews held no useful occupation to be beneath the dignity of a respectable person, or even a learned man. Still the nature of their business was such, as to render it improbable that they had adopted it with any other view than that of maintaining themselves by it, or of enlarging their property, though perhaps not of earning a support which they had no other means whatever of procuring. It has been said, that doubtless, there were many other inhabitants of the shores of the lake, who occasionally occupied themselves in fishing, and yet were by no means obliged to employ themselves constantly in that avocation. But the brief statement of circumstances in the gospels is enough to show that such an equipage of boats and nets, and such steady employment all night, were not indicative of anything else than a regular devotion of time to it, in the way of business. Yet that Zebedee was not a man in very low circumstances, as to property, is quite manifest from Mark’s statement, that when they were called, they left their father in the vessel, along with the “servants,” or workmen,——which implies that they carried on their fishing operations, on so extended a scale, as to have a number of men in their service, and probably had a vessel of considerable size, since it needed such a plurality of hands to manage it, and use the apparatus of the business to advantage; a circumstance in which their condition seems to have been somewhat superior to that of Peter and Andrew, of whom no such particulars are specified,——all accounts representing them as alone, in a small vessel, which they were able to manage of themselves. The possession of some family estate is also implied, in numerous incidental allusions in the gospels; as in the fact that their mother Salome was one of those women who followed Jesus and “ministered to him of their substance” or possessions. She is also specified among those women who brought precious spices for embalming the body of Jesus. John is also mentioned in his own gospel, as having a house of his own, in which he generously supported the mother of Jesus, as if he himself had been her son, throughout the remainder of her life; an act of friendly and pious kindness to which he would not have been competent, without the possession of some property in addition to the house.
HIS EDUCATION.
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.
After the scenes of Gethsemane, when the alarmed disciples fled from their captured Master, to avoid the same fate, John also shared in the race; but on becoming assured that no pursuit of the secondary members of the party was intended, he quietly walked back after the armed train, keeping, moreover, close to them, as appears by his arriving at the palace gate along with them, and entering with the rest. On his way, in the darkness, he fell in with his friend Peter, also anxiously following the train, to learn the fate of his Master. John now proved of great advantage to Peter; for, having some acquaintance with the high priest’s family, he might expect admission to the hall without difficulty. This incident is recorded only by John himself, in his gospel, where, in relating it, he refers to himself in the third person, as “another disciple,” according to his usual modest circumlocution. John, somehow or other, was well and favorably known to the high priest himself, for a very mysterious reason; but certainly the most unaccountable point in Bible history is this:——how could a faithful follower of the persecuted and hated Jesus, be thus familiar and friendly in the family of the most powerful and vindictive of the Jewish magnates? Nor can the difficulty be any way relieved, by supposing the expression, “another disciple” to refer to a person different from John; for all the disciples of Jesus would be equally unlikely persons for the intimacy of the Jewish high priest. Whatever might be the reason of this acquaintance, John was well-known throughout the family of the high priest, as a person high in favor and familiarity with that great dignitary; so that a single word from him to the portress, was sufficient to procure the admission of Peter also, who had stood without, not daring to enter as his brother apostle did, not having any warrant to do so on the ground of familiarity. Of the conduct of John during the trial of Jesus, or after it, no account whatever is given,——nor is he noticed in either of the gospels except his own, as present during any of these sad events; but by his story it appears, that, in the hour of darkness and horror, he stood by the cross of his beloved Lord, with those women who had been the constant servants of Jesus during life, and were now faithful, even through his death. Among these women was the mother of the Redeemer, who now stood in the most desolate agony, by the cross of her murdered son, without a home left in the world, or a person to whom she had a natural right to look for support. Just before the last agony, Jesus turned to the mournful group, and seeing his mother near the disciple whom he loved, he said, “Woman! behold thy son!” And then to John, “Behold thy mother!” The simple words were sufficient, without a gesture; for the nailed and motionless hands of Jesus could not point out to each, the person intended as the object of parental or filial regard. Nor was this commission, thus solemnly and affectingly given, neglected; for, as the same disciple himself assures us, “from that hour, he took her to his own house.” The highest token of affection and confidence that the Redeemer could confer, was this,——marking, as it did, a most pre-eminent regard, by committing to his charge a trust, that might with so much propriety have been committed to others of the twelve who were very nearly related to the mother of Jesus, being her own nephews, the sons of her sister. But so high was the confidence of Jesus in the sincerity of John’s affection, that he unhesitatingly committed to him this dearest earthly charge, trusting to his love for its keeping, rather than to the considerations of family, and of near relationship.
In the scenes of the resurrection, John is distinguished by the circumstance of his hurrying first, along with Peter, to the sepulcher, on hearing from the women the strange story of what had happened; and both hastening in the most intense anxiety to learn the nature of the occurrences which had so alarmed the women, the nimbleness of the youthful John soon carried him beyond Peter, and outstripping him in the anxious race, he came down to the sepulcher before him, and there stood, breathless, looking down into the place of the dead, in vain, for any trace of its late precious deposit. While he was thus glancing into the place, Peter came up, and with a much more considerate zeal, determined on a satisfactory search, and accordingly went down into the tomb himself, and narrowly searched all parts; and John, after his report, also then descended to assure himself that Peter had not been deceived by a too superficial examination of the inside. But having gone down into the tomb, and seen for himself the grave-clothes lying carefully rolled up, but no signs whatever of the body that had once occupied them, he also believed the report of the women, that the remains of Jesus had been stolen away in the night, probably by some ill-disposed persons, for an evil purpose, and perhaps to complete the bloody triumph of the Jews, by denying the body so honorable an interment as the wealthy Joseph had charitably given it. In distress and sorrowful doubt, therefore, he returned with Peter to his own house, without the slightest idea of the nature of the abstraction.
The next account of John is in that interesting scene, described in the last chapter of his own gospel, on the lake of Galilee, where Jesus met the seven disciples who went on the fishing excursion by night, as already detailed in the life of Simon Peter, who was the first to propose the thing, and who, in the scenes of the morning, acted the most conspicuous part. The only passage which immediately concerns John, is the concluding one, where the prophecy of Jesus is recorded respecting the future destiny of this beloved disciple. Peter, having heard his Master’s prophecy of the mode in which he should conclude his life, hoping to pry still farther into futurity, asked what would be the fate of John also. “Lord, what shall this man do?” which Jesus replied, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”——an answer evidently meant to check his curiosity, without gratifying it in the least; as John himself, remarking on the fact, that this saying originated an unfounded story, that Jesus had promised him that he should never die,——says that Jesus never specified any such thing, but merely said those few unsatisfactory words in reply to Peter. The words, “till I come,” referred simply to the time when Christ should come in judgment on Jerusalem, for that unquestionably was the “coming,” of which he had so often warned them, as an event for which they must be prepared; and it was partly from a misinterpretation of these words, by applying them to the final judgment, that the idle notion of John’s immortality arose. John probably surviving the other apostles many years, and living to a very great age, the second generation of Christians conceived the idea of interpreting this remark of Jesus as a prophecy that his beloved disciple should never die. And John, in his gospel, knowing that this erroneous opinion was prevalent, took pains to specify the exact words of Jesus, showing that they implied no direct prophecy whatever, nor in any way alluded to the possibility of his immortality. After the ascension, John is mentioned along with the rest who were in the upper room, and is otherwise particularized on several occasions, in the Acts of the Apostles. He was the companion of Peter in the temple, at the healing of the lame man, and was evidently considered by the chief apostle, a sharer in the honors of the miracle; nor were the Sanhedrim disposed to deem him otherwise than criminally responsible for the act, but doomed him, along with Peter, to the dungeon. He is also honorably distinguished by being deputed with Peter to visit the new church in Samaria, where he united with him in imparting the confirming seal of the spirit to the new converts,——and on the journey back to Jerusalem, preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
From this time no mention whatever is made of John in the Acts of the Apostles; and the few remaining facts concerning him, which can be derived from the New Testament, are such only as occur incidentally in the epistolary writings of the apostles. Paul makes a single allusion to him, in his epistle to the Galatians, where, speaking of his reception by the apostles on his second visit to Jerusalem, he mentions James, Cephas and John, as “pillars” in the church, and says that they all gave him the right hand of fellowship. This little incidental allusion, though so brief, is worth recording, since it shows that John still resided in Jerusalem, and there still maintained his eminence and his usefulness, standing like a pillar, with Cephas and James, rising high above the many, and upholding the bright fabric of a pure faith. This is the only mention ever made of him in the epistles of Paul, nor do any of the remaining writings of the New Testament contain any notice whatever of John, except those which bear his own name. But as these must all be referred to a later period, they may be left unnoticed until some account has been given of the intervening portions of his long life. Here then the course of investigation must leave the sure path of scripture testimony, and lead on through the mazy windings of traditionary history, among the baseless records of the Fathers.
Pillars.——This was an expressive figurative appellation, taken no doubt, with direct allusion to the noble white columns of the porches of the temple, subserving in so high a degree the purposes both of use and ornament. The term implies with great force, an exalted excellence in these three main supporters of the first Christian church, and besides expressing the idea of those eminent virtues which belonged to them in common with other distinguished teachers of religion, it is thought by Lampe, that there is implied in this connection, something peculiarly appropriate to these apostles. Among the uses to which columns were applied by Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans, was that of bearing inscriptions connected with public ordinances of state or religion, and of commemorating facts in science for the knowledge of other generations. To this use, allusion seems to be made in Proverbs ix. 1. “Wisdom has built her house,——she has engraved her seven pillars.” And in Revelation iii. 12, a still more unquestionable reference is made to the same circumstance. “Him that overcomes, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from God,——and my own new name;”——a passage which Grotius illustrates by a reference to this very use of pillars for inscriptions. It is in connection with this idea, that Lampe considers the term as peculiarly expressive in its application to “James, Cephas and John,” since from them, in common with all the apostles, proceeded the oracles of Christian truth, and those principles of doctrine and practice, which were acknowledged as the rule of faith, by the churches of the new covenant. To these three, moreover, belonged some peculiar attributes of this character, since they distinguished themselves above the most of the twelve, by their written epistolary charges, as well as by the general pre-eminence accorded to them by common consent, leaving to them the utterance of those apostolic opinions, which went forth from Jerusalem as law for the Christian churches.
Lampe quotes on this point Vitringa, (Sacred Observations, I. iii. 7,) Suicer, (Church Thesaurus voc. στυλος,) and Gataker, (Cinnus, ii. 20.) He refers also to Jerome, commenting on Galatians ii. 9; who there alludes to the fact that John, one of the “pillars,” in his Revelation, introduces the Savior speaking as above quoted. (Revelation iii. 12.)
THE RESULTS OF TRADITION.
Probably there are few results of historical investigation, that will make a more decided impression of disappointment on the mind of a common reader, than the sentence, which a rigid examination compels the writer to pass, with almost uniform condemnatory severity, on all apostolic stories which are not sanctioned by the word of inspiration. There is a universal curiosity, natural, and not uncommendable, felt by all the believers and hearers of the faith which the apostles preached, to know something more about these noble first witnesses of the truth, than the bare broken and unconnected details which the gospel, and the apostolic acts can furnish. At this day, the most trifling circumstances connected with them,——their actions, their dwelling-places, their lives or their deaths, have a value vastly above what could ever have been appreciated by those of their own time, who acted, dwelt, lived, and died with them,——a value increasing through the course of ages, in a regular progression, rising as it removes from the objects to which it refers. But the very course of this progression implies a diminution of the means of obtaining the desired information, proportioned to the increase of the demand for it;——and along with this condition of things, the all-pervading and ever-active spirit of invention comes in, to quench, with deep draughts of delightful falsehood, the honest thirst for literal truth. The misfortune of this constitution of circumstances, being that the want is not felt till the means of supplying it are irrecoverably gone, puts the investigation of the minutiae of all antiquity, sacred or profane, upon a very uncertain ground, and requires the most critical test for every assertion, offered to satisfy a curiosity which, for the sake of the pleasure thus derived, feels interested in deceiving itself; for
“Doubtless the pleasure is as great
Of being cheated as to cheat.”
Even the spirit of deep curiosity which beguiles the historical inquirer into a love of the fabulous and unfounded tales of tradition, though specifically more elevated by its intellectual character, is yet generically the same with the spirit of superstitious credulity, that leads the miserable Papist to bow down with idolatrous worship before the ridiculous trash, called relics, which are presented to him by the consecrated impostors who minister to him in holy things; and the feeling of indignant horror with which he repulses the Protestant zeal, that would rob his spirit of the comfortable support afforded by the possession of an apostolical toe-nail, a lock of a saint’s hair, or by the sight of the Savior’s handkerchief, or of a drop of his blood,——is all perfectly kindred to that indignant regret with which even a reformed reader regards all these critical assaults upon agreeable historical delusions,——and to that stubborn attachment with which he often clings to antique falsehood. Yet the pure consolations of the truth, known by research and judgment, are so far above these baser enjoyments, that the exchange of fiction, for historical knowledge, though merely of a negative kind, becomes most desirable even to an uncritical mind.
The sweeping sentence of condemnation against all traditionary stories, may, however, be subjected to some decided exceptions in the case of John, who, living much longer than any other of the apostles, would thus be much more widely and lastingly known than they, to the Christians of the first and second generations after the immediate contemporaries of the twelve. On this account the stories about John come with much higher traditionary authority, than those which pretend to give accounts of any other apostle; and this view is still further confirmed by the character of most of the stories themselves; which are certainly much less absurd and vastly more probable in their appearance, than the great mass of apostolic traditions. Indeed, in respect to this apostle, may be said, what can not be said of any other, that some tolerably well-authorized, and a very few decidedly authentic, statements of his later life, may be derived from passages in the genuine writings of the early Fathers.
HIS JUDAICAL OBSERVANCES.
The first point in John’s history, on which the authentic testimony of the Fathers is offered to illustrate his life, after the Acts of the Apostles cease to mention him, is, that during the difficulties between the weak-minded, Judaizing Christians, and those of a freer spirit who advocated an open communion with those Gentile brethren that did not conform to the Mosaic ritual, he, with Peter, and more particularly with James, joined in recommending a compromise with the inveterate prejudices of the Jewish believers; and to the end of his life, though constantly brought in contact with Gentiles, he himself still continued, in all legal and ritual observances, a Jew. A striking and probable instance of this adherence to Judaism, is given in the circumstance, that he always kept the fourteenth day of March as holy time, in conformity with one of the most common of the religious usages in which he had been brought up; and the respect with which he regarded this observance is strongly expressed in the fact that he countenanced and encouraged it, also, in his disciples, some of whom preserving it throughout life as he did, brought down the notice of the occurrence to those days when the extinction of almost all the Judaical part of primitive Christianity made such a peculiarity very remarkable. This, though a small, is a highly valuable incident in the history of John, containing a proof of the strong affection which he always retained for the religion of his fathers,——a feeling which deserves the highest commendation, accompanied as it was, by a most catholic spirit towards those Gentile Christians who could not bear a yoke, which education and long habit alone made more tolerable to him.
With Peter and James.——The authority for this is Irenaeus, (A. D. 150–170,) who says, “Those apostles who were with James, permitted the Gentiles indeed to act freely, leaving us to the spirit of God. They themselves, too, knowing the same God, persevered in their ancient observances. * * * Thus the apostles whom the Lord made witnesses of his whole conduct and his whole teaching, (for every where are found standing together with him, Peter, James and John,) religiously devoted themselves to the observance of the law, which is by Moses, thus acknowledging both [the law and the spirit] to be from one and the same God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies.)
Fourteenth day of March.——This refers to the practice of observing the feast of the resurrection of Christ, on the fourteenth day of March, corresponding with the passover of the Jews,——a custom long kept up in the eastern churches, instead of always keeping it on Sunday. The authority for the statement is found in two ancient writers; both of whom are quoted by Eusebius. (Church History, V. 24.) He first quotes Polycrates, (towards the end of the second century,) as writing to Victor, bishop of Rome, in defense of the adherence of the eastern churches to the practice of their fathers, in keeping the passover, or Easter, on the fourteenth day of the month, without regard to the day of the week on which it occurred, though the great majority of the Christian churches throughout the world, by common consent, always celebrated this resurrection feast on the Lord’s day, or Sunday. Polycrates, in defense of the oriental practice of his flock and friends, so accordant with early Jewish prejudices, quotes the example of the Apostle John, who, he says, died at Ephesus, where he (Polycrates) was bishop. He says, that John, as well as his brother-apostle, Philip, and Polycarp his disciple, “all observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, never varying from that day, at all.” Eusebius (ibid.) quotes also Irenaeus, writing to the same bishop Victor, against his attempt to force the eastern churches into the adoption of the practice of the Roman church, in celebrating Easter always on a Sunday, instead of uniformly on the fourteenth day of the month, so as to correspond with the Jewish passover. Irenaeus, in defense of the old eastern custom, tells of the practice of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of John. Polycarp, coming to Rome in the days of bishop Anicetus, (A. D. 151–160,) though earnestly exhorted by that bishop to renounce the eastern mode of celebrating Easter always on the fourteenth, like the Jewish passover, steadily refused to change; giving as a reason, the fact that John, the disciple of Jesus, and others of the apostles, whom he had intimately known, had always followed the eastern mode.
This latter authority, fairly derived from a person who had been the intimate friend of John himself, may be pronounced entitled to the highest respect, and quite clearly establishes this little circumstance, which is valuable only as showing John’s pertinacious adherence to Jewish forms, to the end of his life.
Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, (A. D. 439,) alludes to the circumstance, that those who observed Easter on the fourteenth, referred to the authority of the Apostle John, as received by tradition.