We now come to what we may call the second group of four apostles; and, just as Peter heads the first group, the second is headed by the apostle Philip. In the first three gospels he is placed in this order. He is mentioned as being of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. (John 1:44.) It is more than probable that he was among the Galileans of that district who docked to hear the preaching of John the Baptist. Though no part of Palestine was spoken of in such terms of reproach as Galilee, it was from these despised, but simple, earnest, and devoted Galileans that our Lord chose His apostles. “Search, and look,” said the Pharisees, “for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” But sweeping statements, generally speaking, are untrue. “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” is a sample of their character.
Nothing is said in the gospel history of Philip’s parents Dr occupation. Most likely he was a fisherman, the general trade of that place. From the similarity of language used by Philip and Andrew, and their being repeatedly mentioned together, we may conclude that our apostle, and the sons of Jonas and Zebedee, were intimate friends, and that they were all looking and waiting for the expected Messiah. But in the whole circle of our Lord’s disciples, Philip has the honor of being first called. The first three had come to Christ, and conversed with Mm before Philip, but afterward they returned to their occupation, and were not called to follow the Lord for about a year after. But Philip was called at once. “The day following,” we read, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.” These words, so full of meaning and rich blessing to the soul, “Follow me,” we believe were first said to Philip. When the twelve were specially set apart for their office, he was numbered among them.
Immediately after his call, he finds Nathanael and leads him to Jesus. It is evident, from the glad surprise which breathes in his information, that they had spoken together of these things before. His heart was now well assured of their truth; hence the joy expressed in these words, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” There is an evident earnest-heartedness about Philip, though little is said of him in the gospels. Our last interview with him, like the first, is deeply interesting. Having heard the Lord repeatedly refer to His Father in John 12; 13; 14, he manifested a strong desire to know more of the Father. The pathetic words of our Lord about His Father appear to have made a deep impression on Ms heart; and little wonder. “Father, save me from this hour”— “Father, glorify thy name”—“In my Father’s house are many mansions:” are sayings which, we doubt not, sank deep Μ all the disciples’ hearts. But there is a beautiful simplicity about Philip, though lacking in intelligence. “Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” There is evident reproof, if not reproach, in the Lord’s reply to Philip. “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” There had been the revelation of the Father to His own Person, and he ought to have known Him. He had now been a long time with His disciples, and they ought to have seen that He was in the Father, and the Father in Him, and thus have known where He was going, for He was going to the Father. They had both the “word” and the “works” of the Son, to convince them that the Father dwelt in Him. They had heard His words, they had seen His works, they had witnessed His character, and these things were fitted and intended to bring the Father before them. His own Person was the answer to every question. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He was the way—the only way to the Father. He was the truth—the truth as to everyone and everything as they are, is only known by Him. He is the life— “that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” But it is only by the teaching and power of the Spirit that He who is “the way, the truth, and the life,” is known and enjoyed. And there must be subjection of heart to Christ, if we would know the teaching of the Spirit.
After this deeply interesting and instructive conversation with the Lord, all is uncertain as to Philip’s history—his name disappears from the gospel narrative. He has his own place in the catalog, Acts 1:13. Tradition has so frequently confounded Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle, that all is uncertain. No doubt his remaining years were spent in devoted service to his Lord and Savior, but where, it is difficult to say. Some think that Upper Asia was the scene of his early labors, and that in the latter period of his life he came to Hierapolis in Phrygia, where he suffered a cruel martyrdom.
Bartholomew. It has been very generally believed both by ancients and moderns, that the history of Bartholomew lies concealed under another name. That he was one of the twelve apostles, is perfectly clear from the gospel narrative, though nothing more is said of Mm than the bare mention of his name. In the first three gospels, Philip and Bartholomew are mentioned together; in John’s gospel, it is Philip and Nathanael. This circumstance has given rise to a very common conjecture, that these are but different names for the same person. Nothing was more common ban tins among the Jews. For example, Simon Peter is called “Bar-jona,” which simply means—the son of Jona. “Bartimaeus” again, means the son of Timaeus; and “Bartholomew” is a name of the same class. These are merely relative, not proper names. From this custom being so general among the Jews, it is often extremely difficult to identify persons in the gospel history.
Assuming, then, that the Nathanael of John is the Bartholomew of the synoptical gospels, we proceed with what we know of his history. Like the rest of the apostles, he was a Galilean—he was “of Cana in Galilee.” We have seen in a former paper, that he was first conducted by Philip to Christ. On his approach, he was greeted by the Lord, with the most honorable distinction—“Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” He was, no doubt, a man of true simplicity and integrity of character; and one that “waited for redemption in Israel.” Surprised at our Lord’s most gracious salutation, and wondering how He could know him at first sight, “Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” Solemn, yet blessed thought! he stood before one—a man—in this world, who knew the secrets of his heart and ways. Nathanael was now fully convinced of the absolute deity of the Messiah, and owns Him in His higher glories as “the Son of God” as well as “the king of Israel.”
The character of Nathanael and his call are considered by many as typical of the remnant of Israel, without guile, hi the latter day. The allusion to the fig tree—the well-known symbol of Israel—confirms this view of the passage; and so does his beautiful testimony. “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the king of Israel.” The spared remnant, seen and known by the Lord, will thus confess their faith in Him, as the prophets most fully show. And all those who thus own the Messiah, shall see His universal glory as the Son of man, according to Psalm 8 That coming day of wide spread glory is anticipated by our Lord in His concluding remarks to Nathanael: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Then will the heavens and the earth be joined together, as if by Jacob’s ladder. But we must now return to the direct history of our apostle.
The most distinct and conclusive passage as to his apostleship is John 21. There we find him in company with the other apostles, to whom our Lord appeared at the sea of Tiberias after His resurrection. “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of Ids disciples,” who probably were Andrew and Philip.
There is a generally received tradition, that Bartholomew traveled as far as India, preaching the gospel. Probably to that part of India which lies nearest to Asia. After traveling in different places, seeking to spread Christianity, he at last reached Albanople, in Armenia the Great, a place overgrown with idolatry. There he was arrested in the midst of his labors by the governor of the place, and condemned to be crucified. The date is not certainly known.
Matthew—called also Levi, the son of Alpheus; but not the same person, we believe, as Alpheus the father of James. (Matt. 10:3; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29.) Though a Roman officer, he was “an Hebrew of the Hebrews,” and probably a Galilean, but of what city or tribe we are not informed. Before his call to follow the Messiah, he was a publican, or tax gatherer, under the Romans. He seems to have been stationed at Capernaum, a maritime town on the Sea of Galilee. He was what we should call a custom-house officer. It was in this capacity that Jesus found him. When He passed by, He saw him “sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.” But before proceeding with the history of Matthew, we would say a few words on the character of his occupation, as it is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and is really a symbolic term.
Publicans, properly so called, were persons who farmed the Roman taxes or revenue. They were, usually, persons of wealth and credit. It was considered among the Romans an honorable position, and generally conferred on Roman knights. Sabinus, it is said, father of the Emperor Vespasian, was the publican of the Asiatic provinces. They employed under them inferior officers, and these, generally, were natives of the provinces where the taxes were collected; to this class Matthew no doubt belonged.
These petty officers were everywhere notorious for their fraudulent exactions; but to the Jews they were especially odious. They looked upon themselves as a freeborn people, and that they had this privilege direct from God Himself. “We be Abraham’s seed,” was their boast, “and were never in bondage to any man.” Consequently, the Roman tax gatherers were the visible proofs of their slavery, and of the degraded state of their nation. This was the chain that galled them, and betrayed them into many acts of rebellion against the Romans. Hence it was that publicans were abhorred by the Jews. They looked upon them as traitors and apostates, and as the ready tools of the oppressor. Besides, they were most arbitrary and unjust in their taxations; and having the law on their side, they could enforce payment. It was in their power to examine each case of goods exported or imported, and to assess the alleged value in the most vexatious way. We may gather, from what John said to them, that they overcharged whenever they had an opportunity. “And he said unto them, Exact no more than is appointed you.” Luke 3:13. See also the case of Zacchaeus. Luke 19:9.
Surely these things were more than enough to bring the whole class into the greatest detestation everywhere. But we will confine ourselves to what we learn of them in the New Testament. The Spirit of truth never exaggerates. Then we find them classed with sinners (Matt. 9:11; 11:19); with harlots (Matt. 21:31, 32); with heathen. (Matt. 18:17.) As a class, they were excommunicated, not only from the privileges of the sanctuary, but from the privileges of civil society. And yet, notwithstanding all these disadvantages, their ranks furnished some of the earliest disciples both of John and of our Lord. They had less hypocrisy than those who were esteemed better, they had no conventional morality; and they had no false religion to unlearn. These things may be fairly argued from the parable of the Pharisee and publican. (Luke 18) Conventional goodness is a mighty hindrance to the soul’s salvation. It is difficult for such to take the place of a lost, ruined sinner, that grace may have a free course and do her blessed, saving, gracious work. He who would be justified of God, must take the publican’s place, and offer up the publican’s prayer, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” We now return to the history of our apostle.
With great readiness Matthew obeyed the call of Jesus. His lucrative situation was at once given up; and his conversion, so thorough and manifest, was accompanied with much blessing to others. There was a great awakening and interest amongst his own class. “And Levi made a great feast in his own house; and there was a great company of publicans and others that sat down with them.” A feast is the symbol of joy and rejoicing—the immediate effect of a hearty surrender to Christ. It is worthy of note that in his own gospel he refers to what he was, but neither of the other evangelists speaks of “Matthew the publican.” Along with the others he was chosen one of the twelve. From that time he continued with the Lord, like the rest of the apostles. Blessed privilege!—“a familiar attendant on His person, a spectator of His public and private life, a bearer of His sayings and discourses, a beholder of His miracles, a witness of His resurrection and ascension to glory.” Matthew was with the other apostles on the day of Pentecost, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. How long he continued in Judea after that event, we are not informed. His gospel is supposed to be the first that was written, and has a special reference to Israel.
Ethiopia is generally assigned as the scene of his apostolic labors. There, some say, by preaching and miracles, he mightily triumphed over error and idolatry, was the means of the conversion of many, appointed spiritual guides and pastors to confirm and build them up, and to bring over others to the faith; and there finished his course. But the sources of information on these points cannot be trusted.