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
_un_holy 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.)