صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني


says in his Annotations. But Dr. Heuman has another thought. He observes, that Simon, to whom Jesus gave the name of Peter, is often so called: but we do not read that the two sons of Zebedee were any where else spoken of by the name Boanerges, either by themselves or others. He thinks that the words should be thus rendered: And he had surnamed them Boanerges: that is, upon a particular occasion he so called them. That occasion he supposes to be the history related, Luke ix. 52-56. That is an ingenious conjecture. But if this name had been given them in the way of reproof and censure, as Christ once called Peter Satan, Matt. xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33, one would scarcely expect to see it here. The place, as seems to me, leads us to think the name honourable, as well as Peter. Which has been the general opinion of all times.

[ocr errors]

In Suicer's Thesaurus, at the word Вpovrn, may be seen the observations of many ancient writers upon this name. I take Theophylact's only; who says, that when Christ called these two disciples sons of thunder, he intimated that they would be great preachers and eminent divines. From the time they were called by Christ, they statedly attended upon him. They heard his discourses, and saw his miracles.


They were two of the twelve, whom Christ sent forth upon a commission, to preach in the land of Israel; which was of great use to them; thereby they learned to trust in God, and were prepared for the greater difficulties of their apostleship afterwards.

John addressed himself to Christ, saying," Master, we saw one casting out dæmons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us."-So in Luke ix. 49, 50. And more at large in Mark ix. 38-41. But it was a thing, in which several were concerned. For John says: "We saw one casting out dæmons in thy name; and we forbade him." The history, as recorded by the evanquod Jacobus primus apostolorum omnium sanguine suo Christi doctrinam obsignavit; et quod Johannes omnibus apostolis superstes diutissime testimonium perhibuit veritati. Grot. ad Marc. iii. 17.

P Nova Sylloge Dissert. part. I. p. 254–259.


a Legimus, et adversus Petrum, indigne se gerentem, in hæc verba erupisse Christum Apage, Satana. Jam uti Satanas non factum est ordinarium Petri cognomen, sic nec Zebedæi fratres nisi semel nominati sunt Boanerges. Nec proinde laudis hoc nomen est, (quæ quidem inveterata est opinio,) sed nomen vitii. Non est, inquam, appellatio honorifica, sed invectiva. Ib. p. 259.

* Υιος δε βροντης ονομάζει τις τε Ζεβεδαίο, ως μεγαλοκηρυκας και θεολογι κωτάτες. In Marc. tom. I. p. 205. C.

• See Matt. x. 6; Mark vi. 7; Luke ix. 1.

See Luke xxii. 35.

gelists, led me to think so: and Mr. Lampe" was of the same mind. Moreover, it might be done some while


Our Lord was going from Galilee to Jerusalem before the feast of tabernacles, as some think, or before the feast of the dedication, as Dr. Doddridge argues. And, as he was to pass through the country of" Samaria, he sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. But they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go unto Jerusalem. When his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did. But he turned, and rebuked them, and said: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.—And they went to another village," Luke ix. 51–56. Some have been of opinion, that the messengers sent by our Lord, to prepare entertainment for him, were these two disciples. If so, this proposal might be suspected to proceed as much from resentment of an injurious treatment of themselves, as of their master. But to me that is not certain: I rather think, that those messengers were different persons. So " likewise argues Mr. Lampe.

The two brothers, James and John, were ambitious of high posts of honour and dignity in Christ's kingdom: which, with others, they esteemed to be of a worldly nature. The petition was presented by their mother, but at their instigation. And they seem to have been present at the same time: for our Lord's answer is directed to them, Matt. xx. 20-23; Mark x. 35-40.

The two brothers, James and John, and Peter, were the only disciples that were admitted to be present with our Lord at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Mark v. 37; Luke viii. 51. The same three disciples were taken up by Christ into the mount, when he was transformed in a glorious manner, and Moses and Elias appeared talking with him, Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2; Luke ix. 28. The same three were admitted to be present at our Lord's devotions

" Ubi supr. 1. i. cap. 2. num. 18.


Family Expositor, Vol. II. p. 183.

Cui tamen in eo non accedimus, quod filios Zebedæi ipsos illos legatos putat fuisse, quos Jesus in vicum Samaritanorum hospitium rogaturos miserat. Unde ob illatam sibi injuriam videntur exacerbati esse, sed textus legatos illos a filiis Zebedæi satis clare distinguit. Accedit, quod Jesus ad illos roupas, conversus, fuerit: quod indicat illos, cum Domino consilium proponerent, non fuisse Domino obvios, sed pone eum sequentes. Lampe, Proleg. 1. i. cap. 2. n. xix. not. (b.)

in the garden, when he retired from the rest. But they all failed to watch with their Lord, as he had desired, Matt. xxvi. 36-45; Mark xiv. 32—42.


Says St. Mark, xiii. 1, 2, “ And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones, and what buildings are here. And Jesus answering, said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Compare Matt. xxiv. 1, 2. It follows in Mark xiii. 3, 4, " And as he sat on the mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, asked him privately: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign, when all these things shall be fulfilled?" Whereby we perceive, that to those four disciples, especially, our Lord addressed himself, when he delivered the predictions concerning the great desolation coming upon the Jewish people, recorded in that chapter, and in Matt. xxiv; and Luke xxi.

This apostle and Peter were the two disciples whom Jesus sent to prepare for eating his last passover, Luke xxii. 8. Compare Matt. xxvi. 17-19; Mark xiv. 13-16.

Our Lord, sitting at supper with his disciples, said, “One of you will betray me.' Peter beckoned to John, who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, "that he would ask, who it should be of whom he spake:" which he did. And our Lord gave him a sign, by which he might know whom he intended, John xiii. 21-26. This is an instance of the freedom which John might take, as the beloved disciple and friend of Jesus.


When our Lord was apprehended by the Jewish officers, we are informed by St. Mark, xiv. 51, 52, " And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body: and the young men laid hold of him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them." Some have thought that this young man was John. Cave gives a good deal of countenance to that supposition. Others y have thought him to be James, the Lord's brother. But Grotius, and justly, wonders, that any should have been of opinion that he was one of the apostles.

* Indeed upon our Lord's first apprehension, he fled after the other apostles; it not being without some probabilities of reason, that the ancients conceive him to have been that "young man," that followed after Christ, "having a linen cloth cast about his naked body;" whom when the officers laid hold upon, he left the linen cloth, and fled naked away.' Cave's Life of St. John, num. ii. p. 151. y See Whitby upon Mark xiv. 51. Non de apostolorum grege, (quod miror, veteribus in mentem venire potuisse,) nec e domo, in quam Christus in urbe diverterat, sed ex villâ aliquâ

That Peter followed our Lord at a distance, and was admitted into the hall of the Jewish high priest, we are assured from all the gospels. It has been supposed by many, that John showed the like testimony of affection and respect for his Lord; for he says, ch. xviii 15. "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple was known to the high priest, and spake to her that kept the door, and brought in Peter."




Nevertheless it may be questioned, whether John hereby intends himself. Chrysostom supposeth him to be meant, and that St. John concealeth his name out of humility and modesty. To the like purpose also Theophylact. had Jerom any doubt here. But Augustine was cautious in saying who it was; though he thought it might be John.

[ocr errors]

Let us now observe the sentiments of moderns. Whitby upon this place says: He seems not to be John: for he being a Galilean as well as Peter, they might equally have 'suspected him upon that account.' However, to this it might be answered, that John being known to the high priest, he was safe. But then another difficulty will arise; for it may be said, how came John to be so well known to the high priest, and his family, as to be able to direct the servant to admit a stranger, as Peter was, and at that time of night?


Grotius likewise thought that this other disciple could not be John, or any one of the twelve, but rather some believer an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and, possibly, the

horto proximâ, strepitu militum excitatus, et subito accurrens, ut conspiceret quid agerent. Grot. ad Marc. xiv. 51.


* Τις ετιν ὁ ἄλλος μαθητης; Ο ταυτα γραψας. κ. λ. Chr. in. Joan. hom. 83. [al. 82.] T. VIII. p. 491. Τις ην ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής ; Αυτος οὗτος ὁ ταυτα γραψας αποκρυπτει ἑαυτον δια ταπεινοφροσύνην. κ. λ. Theoph, in Joh. xviii. p. 809.

Unde et Jesus Joannem evangelistam amabat plurimum, qui propter generis nobilitatem erat notus pontifici, et Judæorum insidias non timebat; in tantum ut Petrum introduceret in atrium, et staret solus apostolorum ante crucem, matremque Salvatoris in sua reciperet. Ad Princip. virg. ep. 96. [al. 16.] T. IV. p. 780. d Quisnam iste sit discipulus, non temere affirmandum est, quia tacetur. Solet autem se idem Joannes ita significare, et addere, quem diligebat Jesus. Fortassis ergo hic ipse est. Quisquis tamen sit, sequentia videamus. In Joann. Evang. Tr. 113. T. III. P. 2.

Et sane non est probabile, aut ipsum Joannem hic intelligi (cur enim, Galilæus cum esset, minus interrogaretur ab adstantibus, quam Petrus ?) aut aliquem ex duodecim, sed alium quendam Hierosolymitanum, non æque manifestum fautorem Jesu: quales multi erant in urbe, ut supra didicimus, xii. 42. Valde mihi se probat conjectura existimantium, hunc esse eum, in cujus domo Christus cœnaverat, ob id quod legitur, Matt. xxvi. 18. Grot. ad. Joh. xviii. 15.

person at whose house our Lord had eaten the paschal


Lampe hesitates: and at length allegeth the sentiment of a learned writer, who conjectured that this other disciple was Judas the traitor. For Judas, he thinks, was soon touched with remorse for what he had done: and he might follow Jesus to the high priest's, hoping, that by some means he might escape out of the hands of those to whom he had betrayed him. Judas, being there himself, might be very willing to let in Peter. Whether this conjecture be specious or not, I cannot say but it does not seem to me very likely, that St. John should characterize Judas by the title of "another disciple," after he had betrayed his Lord and Master.

After all, I am not able to determine this point. At first reading this place of St. John, we are naturally enough led to think, that by "the other disciple" should be meant himself. But upon farther consideration there arise difficulties that may induce us to hesitate.

Whether he followed Jesus to the hall of Caiaphas, or not, we are assured that he attended the crucifixion, and seems to have been the only one of the twelve that did so. John xix. 25-27, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." There might be several reasons for that determination: as John's being a relation, the sweetness of his temper, and his having somewhat of his own. He had been the beloved disciple or friend of Jesus; and therefore was the most proper to be thus trusted: and doubtless this designation was perfectly agreeable to our Lord's mother.

f Scripseram hæc, cum J. Casp. Merhenii Observat. Crit. in Pass. J. C. consulens, novam ab eo hypothesin proponi deprehenderem,-quæ notatu non indigna est. Ipsum siquidem Judam proditorem pro hoc discipulo habet quem Joannes nominatu post turpissimum proditionis crimen indignum censuit. Id autem quod potissimum in rem spectare videtur, neque a nostrâ sententiâ, quam de consilio Judæ in prodendo Servatore fovemus, abludit, ita habet: Judam, post commissum scelus, pudore suffusum, pedetentim cohortem fuisse secutum, atque in Petrum ita incidisse, cui scelus suum excusare, quin negare potuit, se eâ mente Christo osculum dedisse, ut Christum proderet, sed ut periculum imminens ei subindicaret. Nos sane de eo vix dubitamus, Judam pœnitentiâ sceleris jam tum fuisse tactum, atque conscientiæ stimulis ea propter agitatum, facile potuisse eo consilio Jesum captum sequi, ut resciret, annon aliquâ ratione, pro solito, Jesus manus captorum evasurus esset. beram jam lectori optionem relinquimus.' Lampe, in Evang. Joann. cap. xviii. tom. III. p. 523. note (f.)


« السابقةمتابعة »