THE name of this apostle is here brought in directly after his eminent
brother, in accordance with the lists of the apostles given by Matthew
and Luke, in their gospels, where they seem to dispose them all in
pairs; and very naturally, in this case, prefer family affinity as a
principle of arrangement, putting together in this and the following
instances, those who were sons of the same father. The most eminent
son of Jonah, deservedly taking the highest place on all the lists,
his brother might very properly so far share in the honors of this
distinction, as to be mentioned along with him, without any necessary
implication of the possession of any of that moral and intellectual
superiority, on which Peter’s claim to the first place was grounded.
These seem, at least, to have been sufficient reasons for Matthew,
in arranging the apostles, and for Luke in his gospel; while in his
history of the Acts of the Apostles he followed a different plan,
putting Andrew fourth on the list, and giving the sons of Zebedee
a place before him, as Mark did also. The uniform manner in which
James and John are mentioned along with Peter on great occasions,
to the total neglect of Andrew, seems to imply that this apostle was
quite behind his brother in those excellences which fitted him for
the leading place in the great Christian enterprise; since it is most
reasonable to believe that, if he had possessed faculties of such a
high order, he would have been readily selected to enjoy with him the
peculiar privileges of a most intimate personal intercourse with Jesus,
and to share the high honors of his peculiar revelations of glory and
power.
The question of the relative age of the two sons of Jonah, has been
already settled in the beginning of the life of Peter; and in the same
part of the work have also been given all the particulars about their
family, rank, residence, and occupation, which are desirable for the
illustration of the lives and characters of both. So too, throughout
the whole of the sacred narrative, everything that could concern Andrew
has been abundantly expressed and commented on, in the life of Peter.
The occasions on which the name of this apostle is mentioned in the New
Testament, indeed, except in the bare enumeration of the twelve, are
only three,――his first introduction to Jesus,――his actual call,――and
the circumstance of his being present with his brother and the sons of
Zebedee, at the scene on the mount of Olives, when Christ foretold the
utter ruin of the temple. Of these three scenes, in the first only did
he perform such a part, as to receive any other than a bare mention
in the gospel history; nor even in that solitary circumstance does his
conduct seem to have been of much importance, except as leading his
brother to the knowledge of Jesus. From this circumstance, however, of
his being specified as the first of all the twelve who had a personal
acquaintance with Jesus, he has been honored by many writers with
the distinguishing title of “THE FIRST CALLED,” although others have
claimed the dignity of this appellation for another apostle, in whose
life the particular reasons for such a claim will be mentioned.
THE FIRST CALLED.――In Greek πρωτοκλητος, (_protokletos_,) by
which name he is called by Nicephorus Callistus, (Church History,
II. 39,) and by several of the Greek Fathers, as quoted by
Cangius, (Gloss. in voc.) Suicer, however, makes no reference
whatever to this term.
From the minute narrative of the circumstances of the call, given
by John in the first chapter of his gospel, it appears, that Andrew,
excited by the fame of the great Baptizer, had left his home at
Bethsaida, and gone to Bethabara, (on the same side of the Jordan, but
farther south,) where the solemn and ardent appeals of the bold herald
of inspiration so far equalled the expectation awakened by rumor, that,
along with vast multitudes who seem to have made but an indifferent
progress in religious knowledge, though brought to the repentance and
confession of their sins, he was baptized in the Jordan, and was also
attached to the person of the great preacher in a peculiar manner, as
it would seem, aiming at a still more advanced state of indoctrination,
than ordinary converts could be expected to attain. While in this
diligent personal attendance on his new Master, he was one day standing
with him upon the banks of the Jordan, the great scene of the mystic
sacrament, listening to the incidental instructions which fell from
the lips of the holy man, in company with another disciple, his
countryman and friend. In the midst of the conversation, perhaps, while
discoursing upon the deep question then in agitation, about the advent
of the Messiah, suddenly the great preacher exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb
of God!” The two disciples at once turned their eyes towards the person
thus solemnly designated as the Messiah, and saw walking by them, a
stranger, whose demeanor was such as to mark him for the object of the
Baptizer’s apostrophe. With one accord, the two hearers at once left
the teacher, who had now referred them to a higher source of truth
and purity, and both followed together the footsteps of the wonderful
stranger, of whose real character they knew nothing, though their
curiosity must have been most highly excited, by the solemn mystery of
the words in which his greatness was announced. As they hurried after
him, the sound of their hasty feet fell on the ear of the retiring
stranger, who, turning towards his inquiring pursuers, mildly met
their curious glances with the question, “Whom seek ye?”――thus giving
them an opportunity to state their wishes for his acquaintance. They
eagerly answered by the question, implying their desire for a permanent
knowledge of him,――“Rabbi! (Master,) where dwellest thou?” He kindly
answered them with a polite invitation to accompany him to his lodgings;
for there is no reason to believe that they went with him to his
permanent home in Capernaum or Nazareth; since Jesus was probably then
staying at some place near the scene of the baptism. Being hospitably
and familiarly entertained by Jesus, as his intimate friends, it being
then four o’clock in the afternoon, they remained with him till the
next day, enjoying a direct personal intercourse, which gave them the
best opportunities for learning his character and his power to impart
to them the high instructions which they were prepared to expect, by
the solemn annunciation of the great Baptizer; and at the same time it
shows their own earnestness and zeal for acquiring a knowledge of the
Messiah, as well as his benignant familiarity in thus receiving them
immediately into such a domestication with him. After this protracted
interview with Jesus, Andrew seems to have attained the most perfect
conviction that his newly adopted teacher was all that he had been
declared to be; and in the eagerness of a warm fraternal affection, he
immediately sought his dear brother Simon, and exultingly announced to
him the great results of his yesterday’s introduction to the wonderful
man;――“We have found the Messiah!” Such a declaration, made with the
confidence of one who knew by personal experience, at once secured the
attention of the no less ardent Simon, and he accordingly gave himself
up to the guidance of the confident Andrew, who led him directly to
Jesus, anxious that his beloved brother should also share in the high
favor of the Messiah’s friendship and instruction. This is the most
remarkable recorded circumstance of Andrew’s life; and on his ready
adherence to Jesus, and the circumstance that he, first of all the
disciples, declared him to be the Messiah, may be founded a just claim
for a most honorable distinction of Andrew.
_Bethabara._――Some of the later critics seem disposed to
reject this now common reading, and to adopt in its place
that of _Bethany_, which is supported by such a number of old
manuscripts and versions, as to offer a strong defense against
the word at present established. Both the Syriac versions, the
Arabic, Aethiopic, the Vulgate, and the Saxon, give “_Bethany_;”
and Origen, from whom the other reading seems to have arisen,
confesses that the previously established word was _Bethany_,
which he, with about as much sense of justice and propriety as
could be expected from even the most judicious of the Fathers,
rejected for the unauthorized Bethabara, on the simple ground
that there is such a place on the Jordan, mentioned in Judges
vii. 24,――while Bethany is elsewhere in the gospels described as
close to Jerusalem, on the mount of Olives; the venerable Father
never apprehending the probability of two different places
bearing the same name, nor referring to the etymology of Bethany,
which is בית אניה (_beth anyah_,) “the house (or place) of a boat,”
equivalent to a “ferry.” (Origen on John, quoted by Wolf.)
Chrysostom and Epiphanius are also quoted by Lampe, as defending
this perversion on similar grounds. Heracleon, Nonnus and Beza
are referred to in defense of _Bethany_; and among moderns, Mill,
Simon and others, are quoted by Wolf on the same side. Campbell
and Bloomfield also defend this view. Scultetus, Grotius and
Casaubon, argue in favor of Bethabara. Lightfoot makes a long
argument to prove that Bethany, the true reading, means not
any village or particular spot of that name, but the province or
tract, called ♦Batanea, lying beyond the Jordan, in the northern
part of its course,――a conjecture hardly supported by the
structure of the word, nor by the opinion of any other writer.
This Bethany _beyond the Jordan_, seems to have been thus
particularized as to position, in order to distinguish it from
the place of the same name near Jerusalem. Its exact situation
cannot now be ascertained; but it was commonly placed about
fifteen or twenty miles south of Lake Gennesaret.
♦ “Batanaea” replaced with “Batanea”
_Lamb of God._――This expression has been the subject of much
discussion, and has been amply illustrated by the labors
of learned commentators. Whether John the Baptizer expected
Jesus to atone for the sins of the world, by death, has been
a question ably argued by Kuinoel and Gabler _against_, and
by Lampe, Wolf, and Bloomfield, _for_ the idea of an implied
sacrifice and expiation. The latter writer in particular,
is very full and candid: Wolf also gives a great number of
references, and to these authors the critical must resort for
the minutiae of a discussion, too heavy and protracted for this
work. (See the above authors on John i. 29.)
After narrating the particulars of his call, in which he was merely
a companion of his brother, and after specifying the circumstance of
his being present at the prophecy of the temple’s destruction, the
New Testament history takes not the slightest notice of any action of
Andrew’s life; nor is he even mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,
except in the mere list of their names in the first chapter. For
anything further, reference must be made to that most dubious of
historical materials, the tradition of the Fathers; and the most
reasonable opinion that can be pronounced upon all the rest of Andrew’s
life is, that _nothing whatever is known about it_. He probably
remained all his life in Palestine, quietly and humbly devoting himself
to the trials and labors of the apostolic life, without reference
to the production of any great admiration of his actions, or to the
perpetuation of his fame. Being older than Peter, he probably died
before him, and perhaps before the last great war of the Jews with the
Romans, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, which compelled the
Christians to leave the city. He may, however, have gone eastward with
his brother, and passed the last years of his life in Babylon.