THE second name of this apostle is only the Greek translation of the
former, which is the Syriac and Hebrew word for a “twin-brother,” from
which, therefore, _one_ important circumstance may be safely inferred
about the _birth_ of Thomas, though unfortunately, beyond this,
antiquity bears no record whatever of his circumstances previous to his
admission into the apostolic fraternity.
Nor is the authentic history of the apostles, much more satisfactory in
respect to subsequent parts of Thomas’s history. A very few brief but
striking incidents, in which he was particularly engaged, are specified
by John alone, who seems to have been disposed to supply, by his gospel,
some characteristic account of several of the apostles, who had been
noticed only by name, in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those
in particular who receive this peculiar notice from him, are Andrew,
Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, and John himself,――of all whom, as well
as of Peter, are thus learned some interesting matters, which, though
apparently so trivial, do much towards giving a distinct impression of
some of the leading traits in their characters. Among those facts thus
preserved respecting Thomas, however, there is not one which gives any
account of his parentage, rank in life, or previous occupation; nor
do any other authentic sources bring any more facts to view on these
points. The only conclusion presented even by conjecture, about his
early history, is, that he was a publican, like Matthew,――a notion
which is found in some of the Fathers,――grounded, no doubt, altogether
on the circumstance, that in all the gospel lists, he is paired with
Matthew, as though there were some close connection between them. This
is only a conjecture, and one with even a more insignificant basis
than most trifling speculations of this sort, and therefore deserving
no regard whatever. Of the three incidents commemorated by John,
two at least, are such as to present Thomas in a light by no means
advantageous to his character as a ready and zealous believer in Jesus;
but on both these occasions he is represented as expressing opinions
which prove him to have been very slow, not only in believing, but in
comprehending spiritual truths. The first incident is that mentioned
by John in his account of the death of Lazarus, where he describes the
effect produced on the disciples by the news of the decease of their
friend, and by the declaration made at the same time by Jesus, of his
intention to go into Judea again, in spite of all the mortal dangers
to which he was there exposed by the hatred of the Jews, who, enraged
at his open declarations of his divine character and origin, were
determined to punish with death, one who advanced claims which they
pronounced absolutely blasphemous. This mortal hatred they had so
openly expressed, that Jesus himself had thought it best to retire
awhile from that region, and to avoid exposing himself to the fatal
effects of such malice, until the other great duties of his earthly
mission had been executed, so as to enable him, at last, to proceed to
the bloody fulfilment of his mighty task, with the assurance that he
had finished the work which his Father gave him to do.
But in spite of the pressing remonstrances of his disciples, Jesus
expressed his firm resolution to go, in the face of all mortal dangers,
into Judea, there to complete the divine work which he had only begun.
Thomas, finding his Master determined to rush into the danger, which,
by once retreating from it for a time, he had acknowledged to be
imminent, resolved not to let him go on, alone; and turning to his
fellow-disciples, said, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
The proposal, thus decidedly made, shows a noble resolution in Thomas,
to share all the fortunes of him to whom he had joined himself, and
presents his character in a far more favorable light than the other
passages in which his conduct is commemorated. While the rest were
fearfully expostulating on the peril of the journey, he boldly proposed
to his companions to follow unhesitatingly the footsteps of their
Master, whithersoever he might go,――thus evincing a spirit of far more
exalted devotion to the cause.
The view here taken differs from the common interpretation of
the passage, but it is the view which has seemed best supported
by the whole tenor of the context, as may be decided by a
reference to the passage in its place, (John xi. 16.) The
evidence on both views can not be better presented than in
Bloomfield’s note on this passage, which is here extracted
entire.
“Here again the commentators differ in opinion. Some, as Grotius,
Poole, Hammond, Whitby, and others, apply the αὐτου to _Lazarus_,
and take it as equivalent to ‘let us go and die together with
him.’ But it is objected by Maldonati and Lampe, that Lazarus
was _already_ dead; and die like him they could not, because
a _violent_ death was the one in Thomas’s contemplation. But
these arguments seem inconclusive. It may with more justice
be objected that the sense seems scarcely natural. I prefer,
with many ancient and modern interpreters, to refer the
αὐτου to _Jesus_, ‘let us go and die with him.’ Maldonati
and Doddridge regard the words as indicative of the most
affectionate attachment to our Lord’s person. But this is
going into the other extreme. It seems prudent to hold a middle
course, with Calvin, Tarnovius, Lyser, Bucer, Lampe, and (as it
should appear) Tittman. Thomas could not dismiss the idea of the
imminent danger to which both Jesus and they would be exposed,
by going into Judea; and, with characteristic bluntness, and
some portion of ill humor, (though with substantial attachment
to his Master’s person,) he exclaims: ‘Since our Master will
expose himself to such imminent, and, as it seems, unnecessary
danger, let us accompany him, if it be only to share his fate.’
Thus there is no occasion, with Markland and Forster, apud
Bowyer, to read the words interrogatively.” (Bloomfield’s
Annotations, vol. III. p. 426, 427.)
In John’s minute account of the parting discourses of Christ at
the Last Supper, it is mentioned, that Jesus after speaking of his
departure, as very near, in order to comfort his disciples, told them,
he was going “to prepare a place for them, in his Father’s house, where
were many mansions.” Assuring them of his speedy return to bring them
to these mansions of rest, he said to them, “Whither I go ye know, and
the way ye know.” But so lost, for the time, were all these words of
instruction and counsel, that not one of his followers seems to have
rightly apprehended the force of this remark; and Thomas was probably
only expressing the general doubt, when he replied to Jesus, in much
perplexity at the language, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and
how can we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth, and
the life: no man comes to the Father but by me.” But equally vain was
this new illustration of the truth. The remark which Philip next made,
begging that they might have their curiosity gratified by a sight of
the Father, shows how idly they were all still dreaming of a worldly,
tangible and visible kingdom, and how uniformly they perverted all
the plain declarations of Jesus, to a correspondence with their own
pre-conceived, deep-rooted notions. Nor was this miserable error
removed, till the descent of that Spirit of Truth, which their
long-suffering and ever watchful Lord invoked, to teach their still
darkened souls the things which they would not now see, and to bring
to their remembrance all which they now so little heeded.
The remaining incident respecting this apostle, which is recorded
by John, further illustrates the state of mind in which each new
revelation of the divine power and character of Jesus, found his
disciples. None of them expected his resurrection;――none would
really believe it, until they had seen him with their own eyes.
Thomas therefore showed no remarkable skepticism, when, hearing
from the others, that one evening, when he was not present, Jesus
had actually appeared alive among them, he declared his absolute
unbelief,――protesting, that far from suffering himself to be as lightly
deceived as they had been, he would give no credit to any evidence but
that of the most unquestionable character,――that of seeing and touching
those bloody marks which would characterize, beyond all possibility of
mistake, the crucified body of Jesus. “Except I shall see in his hands
the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” After eight
days, the disciples were again assembled, and on this occasion Thomas
was with them. While they were sitting, as usual, with doors closed
for fear of the Jews, Jesus again, in the same sudden and mysterious
manner as before, appeared all at once in the midst, with his solemn
salutation, “Peace be with you!” Turning at once to the unbelieving
disciple, whose amazed eyes now for the first time fell on the body of
his risen Lord, he said to him, “Thomas! Put thy finger here, and see
my hands; and put thy hand here, and thrust it into my side; and be not
faithless, but believing.” The stubbornly skeptical disciple was melted
at the sight of these mournful tokens of his Redeemer’s dying agonies,
and in a burst of new exalted devotion, he exclaimed, “My Lord! and my
God!” The pierced hands and side showed beyond all question the body
of his “Lord;” and the spirit that could, of itself, from such a death,
return to perfect life, could be nothing else than “God.” The reply
of Jesus to this expression of faith and devotion, contained a deep
reproach to this slow-believing disciple, who would take no evidence
whatever of the accomplishment of his Master’s dying words, except the
sight of every tangible thing that could identify his person. “Thomas!
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they, who
though not seeing, yet believe.”
“_Put thy finger here._”――This phrase seems to express the
graphic force of the original, much more justly than the common
translation. The adverb of place, ὧδε, gives the idea of the
_very place_ where the wounds had been made, and brings to the
reader’s mind the attitude and gesture of Jesus, with great
distinctness. The adverb “_here_,” refers to the print of the
nails; and Jesus holds out his hand to Thomas, as he says these
words, telling him to put his finger into the wound.
_Not seeing, yet believe._――This is the form of expression best
justified by the indefiniteness of the Greek _aorists_, whose
very name implies this unlimitedness in respect to time. The
limitation to the past, implied in the common translation, is by
no means required by the original; but it is left so vague, that
the action may be referred to the present and the future also.
Beyond this, the writings of the New Testament give not the
least account of Thomas; and his subsequent history can only be
uncertainly traced in the dim and dark stories of tradition, or in the
contradictory records of the Fathers. Different accounts state that
he preached the gospel in Parthia,――Media,――Persia,――Ethiopia,――and
at last, India. A great range of territories is thus spread out before
the investigator, but the traces of the apostle’s course and labors are
both few and doubtful. Those of the Fathers who mention his journeys
into these countries, give no particulars whatever of his labors; and
all that is now believed respecting these things, is derived from other,
and perhaps still more uncertain sources.
India is constantly asserted by the Fathers, from the beginning of the
third century, to have very early received the gospel, and this apostle
is named as the person through whom this evangelization was effected;
but this evidence alone would be entitled to very little consideration,
except from the circumstance, that from an early period, to this
day, there has existed in India, a large body of Christians, who give
themselves the name of “St. Thomas’s Christians,” of whose antiquity
proofs are found in the testimony, both of very ancient and very
modern travelers. They still retain many traditions of the person whom
they claim as their founder,――of his place of landing,――the towns he
visited,――the churches he planted,――his places of residence and his
retreats for private devotion,――the very spot of his martyrdom, and
his grave. A tradition, however, floating down unwritten for fifteen
centuries, can not be received as very good evidence; and the more
minute such stories are in particulars, the more suspicious they are
in their character for truth. But in respect to the substance of this,
it may well be said, that it is by no means improbable, and is in the
highest degree consistent with the views, already taken, in former
parts of this work, of the eastward course of the apostles after the
destruction of Jerusalem. The great body of them, taking refuge at
Babylon, within the limits of the great Parthian empire, the more
adventurous might follow the commercial routes still farther eastward,
to the mild and generally peaceful nations of distant India, whose
character for civilization and partial refinement was such as to
present many facilities for the introduction and wide diffusion of the
gospel among them. These views, in connection with the great amount of
respectable evidence from various other sources, make the whole outline
of the story of Thomas’s labors in India very possible, and even highly
probable.
The earliest evidence among the Fathers that has ever been
quoted on this point, is that of Pantaenus, of Alexandria, whose
visit to what was then called India, has been mentioned above;
(page 363;) but as has there been observed, the investigations
of Michaelis and others, have made it probable that Arabia-Felix
was the country there intended by that name. The first distinct
mention made of any eastward movement of Thomas, that can be
found, is by Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,
III. 1,) as testifying, that when the apostles separated to go
into all the world, and preach the gospel, Parthia was assigned
to Thomas; and Origen is represented as appealing to the common
tradition, for the proof of this particular fact. Jerome speaks
of Thomas, as preaching the gospel in Media and Persia. In
another passage he specifies India, as his field; and in this he
is followed by most of the later writers,――Ambrose, Nicephorus,
Baronius, Natalis, &c. Chrysostom (Oration on the 12 Apostles)
says that Thomas preached the gospel in Ethiopia. As the
geography of all these good Fathers seems to have been somewhat
confused, all these accounts may be considered very consistent
with each other. Media and Persia were both in the Parthian
Empire; and all very distant countries, east and south, were, by
the Greeks, vaguely denominated India and Ethiopia; just ♦as all
the northern unknown regions were generally called Scythia.
♦ removed duplicate “as”
Natalis Alexander (Church History, IV. p. 32,) sums up all
these accounts by saying, that Thomas preached the gospel to the
Parthians, Medes, Persians, Brachmans, Indians, and the other
neighboring nations, subject to the empire of the Parthians. He
quotes as his authorities, besides the above-mentioned Fathers,
Sophronius, (A. D. 390,) Gregory Nazianzen, (A. D. 370,) Ambrose,
(370,) Gaudentius, (A. D. 387.) The author of the imperfect
work on Matthew, (A. D. 560,) says, that Thomas found in his
travels, the three Magi, who adored the infant Jesus, and having
baptized them, associated them with him, in his apostolic labors.
Theodoret, (A. D. 423,) Gaudentius, Asterius, (A. D. 320,) and
others, declare Thomas to have died by martyrdom. Sophronius
(390,) testifies that Thomas died at Calamina, in India. This
Calamina is now called Malipur, and in commemoration of a
tradition, preserved, as we are told, on the spot, to this
effect, the Portuguese, when they set up their dominion in India,
gave it the name of the city of St. Thomas. The story reported
by the Portuguese travelers and historians is, that there was a
tradition current among the people of the place, that Thomas was
there martyred, by being thrust through with a lance. (Natalis
Alexander, Church History, vol. IV. pp. 32, 33.)
A new weight of testimony has been added to all this, by the
statements of Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in modern times, has
traced out all these traditions on the spot referred to, and has
given a very full account of the “Christians of St. Thomas,” in
his “Christian researches in India.”
On this evidence, may be founded a rational belief, though not an
absolute certainty, that Thomas actually did preach the gospel in
distant eastern countries, and there met with such success as to leave
the lasting tokens of his labors, to preserve through a course of ages,
in united glory, his own name and that of his Master. In obedience
to His last earthly command, he went to teach “nations unknown to
Caesar,” proclaiming to them the message of divine love,――solitary, and
unsupported, save by the presence of Him, who had promised to “be with
him always, EVEN TO THE END OF THE WORLD.”
JAMES, THE LITTLE;
THE SON OF ALPHEUS.