Lives of the Apostles: James and John

LIVES OF THE APOSTLES. II. JAMES AND JOHN. BY PROFESSOR WILLARD DONE, PRESIDENT OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS' COLLEGE, SALT LAKE CITY. The two sons of Zebedee were so closely associated during the life of Christ, and one of them, James, met a martyr's death so early in the ministry of the Apostles that it seems permissible to combine their lives into one account. Like Peter, they were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, and, no doubt, natives of the same village, Bethsaida. Like Peter, too, they first came into prominence in connection with their discipleship to John the Baptist, at the time of the baptism of Christ. That John is "that other disciple" referred to in his own account of that event, there can be little doubt. From this time he and his brother, together with Peter and Andrew, were devoted followers of Christ. Their call to the active ministry occurred simultaneously with that of Peter and Andrew, all four, indeed, being called through the same miracle. From thenceforth the lives of Peter, James, and John were indissolubly united. These three were present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead, the transfiguration, and the silent vigil in Gethsemane. James and John, however, did not come into quite the prominence attained by the bolder and more assertive Peter. Hence their names are not so often particularized by the evangelists. But we are not to make the mistake of concluding from this cir-

cumstance that these two were lacking in force and fire. The title applied to them, "Boanerges," (sons of thunder,) would indicate the contrary. Two incidents which occurred during the life of Jesus illustrate this forcefulness. On one occasion, while the Lord and the Apostles were traveling through Samaria, a request was sent ahead for entertainment at one of the small villages. To the intense surprise and indignation of the disciples, this entertainment was refused. In the eyes of the Apostles a double offense was committed by those Samaritans. They had broken the strict rule of eastern hospitality, which demands food and shelter for the traveler, no matter how poor and mean. They had also shown disrespect for the Messiah, whom his followers had learned by infallible signs and testimonies, to regard as of higher authority than any of the prophets who had preceded him. Since, therefore, doubtless in this very region, Elijah had called down fire from heaven by which one hundred and two men were consumed, (II. Kings 1: 10-12,) James and John thought the present case even more deserving of punishment. Hence their indignant question, "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" The answer of our Lord, dissuading and rebuking them, is characteristic of his love and forgiveness. According to some authorities it was a short time after this event that James and John again came into prominence on account of the ambition of their mother, Salome. The manner of Christ's approaching death, and the nature of the kingdom into which he was about to enter, had doubtless become quite well known to his disciples. V/hether or not Salome was acquainted with these points is not known. There is no doubt, however, that she knew the greatness of his destiny, and how desirable it would be to be associated with him therein. Therefore she came to him and preferred the ambitious request, "Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." When the two men assured him that they would be able to endure the drinking of his cup and the partaking of his baptism, he dismissed them with the assurance that only the Father could decide who should exercise authority in the kingdom. He assuaged the rising indignation of the other ten by showing

them the difference between his kingdom and those of the gentiles, the ruler in the latter exercising dominion, while those in the former were to be servants of all. Surely there could be no more effectual cure for ambition than this. After this event, James fell into obscurity, being no more mentioned by name by any of the evangelists, except in connection with the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and with the agony in Gethsemane. Of course, he was with Jesus and the other Apostles in all the transactions of the eventful week preceding the crucifixion, and on the occasion of the various appearances of the Savior to the Apostles. In fact, one of these appearances was to James individually, as testified by Paul (I. Cor. 15: 7.) James is next mentioned in the list of Apostles in the first chapter of Acts, and then he is spoken of no more until brief mention is made of his martyrdom. "And he [Herod] killed James, the brother of John, with the sword," (Acts 12: 2.) This event occurred probably as early as 44 A. D. James therefore has the distinction of being the first Apostolic martyr. It is unfortunate that so notable an event should receive such brief treatment at the hands of the historian. Tradition, however, has attempted to fill in the details. It is asserted that the officer who had the distinguished martyr in charge, was so impressed with his dignified fortitude that he was converted to Christianity, and was beheaded at the same time as James. The legend is related by Clement of Alexandria, and preserved by Eusebius in these words: "The accuser of the Apostle, beholding his confession and moved thereby, confessed that he too was a Christian. So they were both led away to execution together, and on the road the accuser asked James for forgiveness. Gazing on him for a little while, he said, 'Peace be with thee,' and kissed him. And then they were both beheaded together." This martyrdom of James is one of the strongest testimonies to his prominence and importance among the Apostles, and does much to correct the impression naturally formed by the lack of prominent mention of him by the evangelists. Surely, since Herod undertook this persecution for the sake of gaining the favor of the Jews, and since, no doubt, he could choose the victim, he would surely select one of the most influential and prominent of the

Apostles. His selection of James, therefore, is a high tribute to the Apostle's worth and dignity. Considerable prominence is given to John in connection with the closing events of the life of Jesus, and also the labors of the Apostles. At the last supper he reclined next to Jesus, and heard some details of the conversation which no doubt escaped the ears of the other Apostles. Prominent among these was the reference to the betrayal wrought by Judas of Kerioth. We cannot help thinking that if the head-strong, self-assertive Peter had heard Christ's injunction to Judas, "That thou doest, do quickly," and had understood its import as John seems to have done, there might have been an interference with the traitor's carefully laid plan of betrayal. We are also very much interested in the record John has kept of the wonderful discourse and impressive prayer of our Lord on that solemn occasion. When Jesus was taken and led away to his trial, John was the only one of the Apostles to remain in his immediate company. Being, as he himself says, "known to the high priest," he was admitted to the house of that officer, where the first stage of the trial took place. From there John followed the Master through the tragic events of that forenoon, to Calvary. He stood within earshot with the women, probably his own mother, the mother of Jesus, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene, during the awful agony of the cross. It was here that the touching incident occurred of Jesus consigning his heart-broken mother to John's care. His impressive words to his mother, "Woman, behold thy son," and to John, "Son, behold thy mother," seem to have been the signal for John to lead Mary away, so that she might not witness the death struggle. It is supposed that John immediately took Mary to his own house in Jerusalem, and remained in close attendance upon her until her death, leaving his home for no great length of time during that period. Together with Peter, John visited the sepulchre just after the resurrection of Jesus, and was therefore one of the first witnesses of that event. He was also in company with Peter, John, Thomas and Nathanael on the sea of Galilee, when the notable appearance of the resurrected Lord occurred there. John comes into special prominence in connection with this event, because of the predic-

tion that he should remain upon the earth until Christ's second coming. The next personal mention of John is in connection with the healing of the lame man by Peter, at the "Beautiful Gate" of the temple. John witnessed this miracle, went with Peter into the temple, and endured, with him, the taunts and abuse heaped upon them by the Jews, joining with him in the determination to "obey God rather than men," in preaching Christ. John accompanied Peter to Samaria, to confer the Holy Ghost on those whom Philip had baptized. This is the last mention of John in the Acts, although Paul refers to him as one of the three " pillar Apostles" at Jerusalem (Peter, James and John) on the occasion of his visit there. (Gal. 2: 9.) For information regarding the subsequent life of John we are entirely dependent upon tradition. It is, necessarily, difficult to determine what legends out of the many clustering about his name are based on fact, and what ones on imagination. The only safe course to follow is to accept, conditionally, those which are supported by the greatest mass of evidence, and reject, also conditionally, the others. In pursuance of this plan, those traditions which are most worthy of belief will be named first, the less likely ones being afterwards particularized. He is said to have remained at Jerusalem until about the year 68 B. C, or about eighteen years after the visit of the Apostle Paul above referred to. What the motive was for his leaving Jerusalem is not conjectured. It is even uncertain where he went. Some authorities are of opinion that he went to Rome, others, to Ephesus. The main reason for supposing that he went to Rome is the graphic description he gives of the Neronic persecutions of the Christians, (Rev.) which argues strongly for his having witnessed those cruelties. It is supposed, too, that he resided at Ephesus before his removal to Patmos, this latter event occurring, according to the general presumption, soon after the year 68. As to the reason for his being at Patmos, we are left somewhat in doubt. There is reason, however, for inclining to the belief that he was banished thither for the testimony of the Gospel. The existence on that island of mines, or quarries, in which prisoners were wont to labor, is a strong presumption for that belief. His

stay on this rocky island was immortalized by his writing the Apocalypse, or Revelation. In spite of hostile criticism, the fact that this grand book was written by John the Apostle, stands well attested. We are almost sure that he spent a great portion of his life toward the close of the first century, in Ephesus, and probably presided over the church there, being possibly, in charge of all the branches situated in Asia Minor. We are safe in supposing that he occupied this responsible position before, as well as after his residence on Patmos, from the tone of authority he assumes in addressing the seven churches in Asia, in the book of Revelation. If this supposition is correct, the importance of John as the last of the Apostles to survive, is clearly shown. Indeed, we may be sure that he exercised a presidential authority over all the churches, at least in Asia, that still remained true to the faith. In consideration of the fact that the quorum of Apostles was not perpetuated, we are not surprised that the last surviving member of the quorum was looked upon with so much reverence by the decaying church. All that is further known about the history of John is that he grew old in the Ephesian community. A tradition which shows a striking characteristic of the Apostle, is to the effect that when he was so old as to be unable to walk to the church, he caused himself to be carried in by some young men. Being unable to talk at any length, he merely greeted the members of the community with the words, "Little children, love one another." When asked why he was so persistent in repeating this admonition, he replied, "Because it is the command of the Lord, and if this is done it is enough." Nor, according to the tradition, did he confine this precept to theory. He applied it in his intercourse with his brethren. It is related that he took a fancy to a young man, and placed him in the care of a bishop, while he (John) was attending to some of his pastoral duties, with the admonition that he should look carefully after the training of the youth. When John returned to the place after a prolonged absence, he inquired after the young man, and found to his sorrow that he had become a bandit chief. Without any hesitancy, the aged Apostle sought him out, and was taken captive by the band. At his own request he was brought

into the presence of the chief, and, by his nobility and self-sacrifice in looking after the souls of others, he rescued the bandit from his downward course. The doubtful legends will be briefly mentioned. One is to the effect that while he was in Rome, he was doomed to martyrdom, his end to be accomplished by his being boiled in oil. But instead of the oil producing any harmful effect, it only served to make him more youthful and vigorous. This tradition is seriously doubted becase it is mentioned by only one writer, Tertullian, who was rather undiscriminating, and for the further reason that boiling in oil was an unusual, not to say unknown, method of execution. There is another tradition, equally doubtful, to the effect that he was given the poisoned hemlock, as in the case of Socrates, but escaped unharmed after drinking it. The last tradition to be referred to, has to do with the death of the Apostle. It relates that John died at Ephesus in the hundredth or one hundred and twentieth year of his life, and that his grave was often pointed out by his followers, to wondering visitors. It was distinguished from the surrounding sepulchres, by the alternate rising and falling of the ground above the Apostle's breast, occasioned by his breathing as he lay in immortal sleep. It is also stated that the grave was opened at a later period and found empty, the body having been raised and immortalized. For the traditions last named there is scarcely a shred of authority. With reference to the death of John. It was a common belief during the early Christian century, that he did not die, but that he was given the privilege of remaining on the earth until the second coming of the Savior. This opinion had its rise from the passage which occurs in the last chapter of the Gospel of John, where the Messiah, in answer to the question of Peter, "What shall this man do?" said, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." The next verse says, "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." From that time until the present, some Bible authorities have been of the opinion that John did not die, while others are of opinion that the legend of his death is true. All doubt is set at rest, however, by the unequivocal testimony of Jesus when speaking to his Nephite disciples, and by the word of the Lord to the Prophet

Joseph Smith. In both these passages it is clearly stated that John was permitted to remain on the earth until the second coming of Christ should occur. It now remains only to give a brief estimate of the character of John. We would first say that he was quick to respond to the influence of good. On this account, perhaps as much as on any other, his Master loved him especially. In at least three instances this quickness of response is illustrated. One was where he followed the Savior so closely on the way to the final agony of the cross, his natural feeling of reverence overcoming the tendency toward fear. The next incident was when he first heard of the resurrection of the Lord. With his usual quick response, he ran at full speed to the sepulchre, his youth and his zealous responsiveness enabling him to distance Peter and arrive first at the tomb. But the difference between the two characters is well illustrated in the fact that although John first arrived at the tomb, his awe restrained him from entering at once, while the bold, impetuous Peter rushed past him into the tomb without a moment's hesitation. The third occasion was when Jesus appeared to the Apostles on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, after the resurrection. Peter, James, John, and some others of the disciples had gone back to their nets, and had toiled all the night without taking any fish. In the morning Jesus appeared on the shore, and asked them if they had any meat. On their answering in the negative, he told them to cast their nets on the right side of the ship. They did so, and were unable to draw the net on account of the great multitude of fishes. With his usual quickness of impression, John recognized Jesus, and exclaimed, "It is the Lord." But if John was the first to recognize him, Peter was was the first to supplement thought with action. He immediately girt his fisherman's cloak about him, cast himself into the sea, and swam to the shore. In John's case impulsiveness was the outcome of reverent love for his Master. This love was mutual, and the proudest title that John gives himself throughout his Gospel, is "that disciple whom Jesus loved." Nor do we think that this is said boastingly but with the conviction that the love of such a One was enough to satisfy the most holy yearnings of the human heart. It was ;this mutual love which prompted John to show devotion where the

other disciples failed in the supreme test. For what stronger incentive can one have than love? The tenderness and gentleness which John displayed in his old age may be considered the direct outcome of the affectionate disposition he manifested toward the Savior and his associates. It became mellowed and ripened with age, without sinking into the weakness and effeminacy so often displayed by people of this disposition. Surely the opposite from effeminacy is shown in his resistance to the demands of the Jewish and Roman officers, in his endurance of pains and banishment, and in his strong and wise administration of the affairs of the churches evidently under his presidency. Briefly, therefore, his nature may be summed up in the two words, strength and sweetness. It is fitting to close this brief account with the estimate placed on the character and disposition of John given by Canon Farrar in his Life of Christ : "The character of St. John has been often mistaken. Filled as he was with a most divine tenderness,—realizing as he did to a greater extent than any of the Apostles the full depth and significance of our Lord's new commandment—rich as his epistles and his gospel are with a meditative and absorbing reverence—dear as he has ever been in consequence to the heart of the mystic and the saint—yet he was something indefinitely far removed from that effeminate pietist that has furnished the usual type under which he has been represented. The name Boanerges, or "Sons of Thunder," which he shared with his brother James, their joint petition for precedence in the kingdom of God, their passionate request to call down fire from heaven on the offending village of the Samaritans, the burning energy of the language in which the Apocalypse is written, the impetuous horror with which, according to tradition, St. John recoiled from the presence of the heretic Cerinthus, all show that in him was the spirit of the eagle, which, rather than the dove, has been his immemorial symbol. And since zeal and enthusiasm, dead as they are, and scorned in these days by an effete and comfortable religionism, yet have ever been indispensable instruments in spreading the Kingdom of heaven, doubtless it was the existence of these elements in his character, side by side with tenderness and devotion, which endeared mm so greatly to his Master, and made him 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' The depth and power of his imagination, the rare combination of contemplativeness and passion, of strength and sweetness, in the same