HOME | Contents | Introduction | Levi | Thomas | Joses | House of Alphai | Judas | Bar-Sabbas | Mary | Judas bar-Sabbas | Joseph |
THOSE who are not interested in genealogies may well skip this chapter. It is with the family connections of some of the personalities that surrounded our Lord that we are to be mainly concerned. Certainty of course cannot be claimed for the identifications here made. But the facts cohere and seem to be a possible avenue of insight into the beginnings of the Jewish Christian Church in Jerusalem.
To write a true and intimate history of any family, it would be necessary to know the family fictions and prejudices as well as the family facts. For it is in the light of these we see the family ideal. And the clue to the history of the House of Alphai seems to us to lie in its tendency to be unduly impressed with the importance of ceremonial and traditional observance. According to Jeremiah, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Religious conservatism has its place, no doubt. Its good and its bad side are exemplified in this family's history. If we keep this fact in mind, we may possibly find that this chronicle is not without its ethical and religious value.
It was a great day in the history of the House of Alphai when the Saviour of the world walked up to the customs-desk in Capernaum and whispered to Levi "Follow me." The capture of Levi by Jesus was probably the beginning of this family's religious glory. They all seem to have become followers of Jesus. And it was the reclaiming of Matthew that doubtless led to the winning of the rest.
Levi, or Matthew, is the best known of the group. It was the supreme moment of his life when he was called from an outwardly important position, chief customs-house officer at this great toll-house on the Via Maris; laid aside his ponderous ledger-rolls; and as the devotee of the Galilean Prophet went up along the road that led to the ignominy of a Cross. It seemed like courting oblivion and disgrace. Yet really, as we now see, it meant becoming a shining star among those who have done most for the spiritual welfare of the world. He was fond of making notes, and from jotting down figures, he took to jotting down many of the golden words which fell from the lips of the Master, into a journal which is now enshrined in the Gospel that bears his name.
Papias says Matthew made a written collection of the Logia (Sayings) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) dialect. And Irenaeus says he did it among the Hebrews (that is, in Palestine), about the time of the activities of Peter and Paul in Rome. Origen explains that it was given out to those who had transferred their faith from Judaism. Eusebius declares it was after he had first preached to them, and when he was about to go elsewhere. But it was not the Gospel as we now have it that came from Matthew's pen. Our Gospel is a compilation in which Mark's is incorporated in large measure. Yet there is no reason for doubting that the long groups of Sayings came from Matthew's journal. And since the Gospel as we now know it was compiled soon after the fall of Jerusalem at the latest, and still retains the Jewish outlook - the reverence for the Law, the leanings to Old Testament prophecy, the conception of Christ as Messiah who was to return soon, the conception of His ingathered Kingdom as an enlarged and purified Chosen People, it has doubtless emanated from the Jewish Christian Church in Palestine. And the compiler was some one who had access to Matthew's journal, one of the circle of Matthew's friends in fact. For we seem to find the impression of Matthew's personality in the Gospel as well as the Logia. Is it wholly beyond the bounds of possibility that Matthew himself compiled the first edition of it, translating his own journal from the Aramaic to make it correspond with his incorporations from Mark? His position as frontier customs-house officer surely implies that he understood Greek.
The man himself is almost lost behind the pages of the journal. Yet not wholly so. All the synoptic Gospels tell of the decisive nature of his experience. He made a complete and sudden break with his past, when he "rose and followed." And when Luke assures us that it was Levi who made the feast that ensued, there is no reason to doubt that he correctly interprets Mark's ambiguous phrase after the story of the call"his house." This feast to honour Christ was a noble way of confessing the change in his life. The best explanation he could offer of his action was to let Christ be seen and heard by his old associates. There is a self-effacement here which the journal enshrined in the first Gospel corroborates. It consists almost entirely of the great life-giving words of his Lord. When compare it with the second Gospel, which consists of Peter's reminiscences of the immortal story, we see at once how completely the man has hidden himself. If, indeed, any disciple is magnified in the first Gospel it is Peter again.
But his candour also we must not overlook. It seems to us to be due to Matthew that the kindly reticence of Mark and Luke is overcome in the first Gospel. For there, Matthew is not called the son of Alphai on the occasion of his call. A man does not usually speak of himself as the son of so-and-so when he writes about himself. At any rate the omission is not due to the fact that Alphai was unknown to the readers of the first Gospel, for he is named in the list of disciples as the father of the second James soon after (x.3)and named without qualification as though he were quite well-known. But the much more important fact about the telling of the story of the call in the first Gospel is that the name given is Matthew. In the other Gospels the name is Levi, with never a hint that this is Matthew the disciple.
And when we proceed to an examination of the list of the Twelve given in this Gospel, there are certain features about it which suggest that the hand of an eye-witness has been at work on Mark's somewhat less precise recollections of what he heard from Peter. It is no slavish copy. It omits the reference to the "sons of thunder": such a by-name would be of greater interest to Peter, who was more closely associated with these two brothers than Matthew or his friends. But the two most interesting deviations from Mark's arrangement have each something of value to add to our delineation of the man. The list is given at a different point in the narrative from Mark's - at the time of the sending out of the disciples; and they are arranged in a different order and in pairs. It is surely a disciple's recollection of Jesus' arrangement when He sent them out two by two. It couples Andrew with Peter, and mentions that he is his brother. They would naturally go out together; so would the sons of Zabdai, who follow. The coupling of Philip with Bartholomew (bar-Tolmai "son of brotherliness"perhaps a name given by Jesus) reminds us of the friendship of Philip and Nathanael, recorded in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus would naturally send these two friends out together; as He would similarly the last pair on the list, Simon the Canaanean and Judas Iscariot, kindred spirits, for whose kinship by blood a strong case can be made out.
But our interest centres rather in the remaining four, and particularly Thomas and Matthew. One tradition would apparently make Thomas a brother of Matthew, but probably it was the divine wisdom of Jesus that associated them. Thomas the brooder would need an associate who had had a clear-cut religious experience; a large-hearted, good-natured companion, who would be patient with his doubts. There is some evidence for believing that Thomas' original name was Judas. Thomas (the "twin") is obviously a cognomen. Jesus was fond of these love-names for His disciples. One of the Judases had two by-names: Lebbai (hearty), perhaps to distinguish him from the cold-blooded "man of Kerioth"; and Thaddai (lively). "Hearty" was not the right word to distinguish him from "the twin," who was warm-hearted too (John xi.16). So when Jesus found him in the company of the "twin," and wanted to address anything specially to him, he would use the kindred word with somewhat different significance - "Thaddai" (lively perhaps "jolly" in the Mark Tapley sense of "courageously optimistic"), for "the twin" was melancholy. Why was Thomas called "twin"? There would be little point in the cognomen if his twin brother were outside the band, and on the other hand it would be no distinguishing mark if his twin brother were among the Twelve. Of course, if his name were Judas, it did distinguish him from the other two. But that alone could not have been the reason for the appellation. Did he perhaps cling to Matthew like his shadow, because he found in him that which was lacking in his own nature? Was there perhaps some odd resemblance in their features also?
But the character of Matthew, as seen against the counterfoil of Thomas' temperament, can be seen directly in this list as well. In this Gospel alone, as we saw, is he called Matthew in the story of his call. And now in the list, as if purposely reiterating the fact, in order that we may make no mistake about it, he is called "Matthew the tax-gatherer." Mark and Luke give the name Levi when they tell about his call. Mark does not even call him tax-gatherer (execrable name to a Jew), but gently refers to him as "sitting at the receipt of custom." And Luke only gets the length of naming him "a tax-gatherer called Levi." Does it not sound as if here in the list in the first Gospel we were listening to Matthew himself taking pains to secure that we shall be under no delusions as to his identity. Once more the candour of the man is apparent. Although a disciple, he does not claim to be anything more than the reclaimed tax-gatherer.
Large-hearted the man must have been also. In that feast in his house, his compassionate sympathy with the under-dog is obvious in the character of the guests. It must have been a supreme joy to him to record Christ's defence of the outcasts. And it must have been a supreme joy to Jesus that at last He had reached those whom He sought "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" - through this notable conquest. The reiteration of that phrase in this Gospel looks like a reflection of Matthew's attitude. It must have been a word often on the lips of this disciple, who gave himself to proclaiming the Gospel in his native land. "Matthew" must have been Jesus' name for him. Levi, the tax-gatherer, became "the gift of God" to Jesus. One fancies, too, from this same trait of his, that Levi had never been happy in the tax-gathering business. Outcasts are fain to club together in a fraternity of wretchedness, and his obvious fellow-feeling for his old associates shows that he felt the ostracism keenly. Doubtless he was sensitive by nature, and had been drawn to listen to Jesus through this very wretchedness of soul. One thinks of the hymn: "Souls of men, why will ye scatter Like a crowd of frightened sheep?"
when one thinks of Matthew. Something like it must have been the burden of his message to his fellow-countrymen.
It might be making words carry too great a weight to suggest that it is his modesty that has caused his own name to be placed after Thomas in the list. But it may not be without significance, that this position brings it next to James, the son of Alphai. Obviously it is to distinguish him from lames the son of Zabdai that this James is so named in all the lists (Matt.x.3 ; Mark iii.18; Luke vi.15; Acts i.13). And this very method of distinguishing makes it practically certain that the second James was a Caperniote, like the sons of Zabdai. But Matthew was a Caperniote too, and only a little earlier in Mark's Gospel Matthew is named the son of Alphai. If the father of James were a different man, that could not but be mentioned here; for no reader of the Gospel could fail to remember that Matthew was also a son of a man of that name. It is difficult to hold any other view than that Matthew and James were brothers, and tradition has it that James had been another tax-collector; he had followed his brother's example. Beyond this we know next to nothing about James. There is but one fact apparent in the records. Of the three groups of four into which the disciples are divided, he is placed at the head of the last group in every list. He was the leader among the minor disciples. We can detect a general distinguishing characteristic between the three groups. The first group are the strong souls, whose inner life moves out and captures and dominates the outer life; the heroic souls who have mastered themselves, and thereby won mastery over the world. In the second group there is a constant discord and strife between the outer and the inner life - Philip, the hesitator between outward fact and inward conviction; Thomas, the brooder, torn between inner doubts and outer loyalties; Nathanael or Bar-tolmai, divided between ancient prejudices and dreams of future glories; Matthew, candid about his past and yet sensitive in the face of public opinion. The last group consists of those in whom there is no discord, because they live almost wholly on the outer surface of the soul. There are the Canaanean and Iscariot, obsessed by the idea of outward material and political power; and James and James' Judas - also surface minds. It was Judas, not Iscariot, who asked why Jesus was not to manifest Himself to the world. James, son of Alphai, was probably, therefore, one who had just drifted with the outer stream of life, drifted into the tax-collecting business and not thought very much about it. A man had to live; and if the Romans were in possession of the land, there was no use fighting against facts. Someone must do the tax-gathering, and why not he? What was the use of worrying about it like Matthew? Matthew was always querulous when he came in to see him, always with a new catalogue of slights and grievances. Until that memorable night when he called, his face all smiles, and said, "I am giving a feast to-night, will you come?" That was the end of the tax-collecting for James. He was one of those lost things that the Master had talked about that night at Matthew's feast. Lost and found!
Who then was Alphai, the father of these men? Almost all that we can affirm of him is that he too must have become a follower of Jesus. He is always spoken of as one well-known to the early Christians. Peter, to whom the reminiscences in the second Gospel are due, speaks of him familiarly. He was a fellow-townsman of his in all probability. But his mention in the first Gospel shows that he was not unknown to the Jerusalem Christians. Possibly he was a trader, or merchant, for out of this class we may suppose the tax-gatherers were drawn. It may be a reflection of his keenness in a worldly sense, that no less than two of his sons had entered the hated profession. The passion for wealth gives a kind of spurious courage to face obloquy. This prosperous man had possibly followed his sons when they went to Jerusalem to become propagandists of the new faith. He may have set up business again in the Holy City, and so may have taken an active share in the doings of the Jerusalem Christians. A father who had two sons in the disciple-band must have been held in high esteem by the Church of the beginning.
But that is not all the glory of Alphai. Luke alone among the synoptists speaks of a "Judas of James" in the band (Luke vi.16; Acts i.13). He stands in the place which Lebbai or Thaddai occupies in the others. The Fourth Gospel corroborates the fact that there was a "Judas, not Iscariot" among the disciples (John xiv.22). Doubtless this Judas is the twice by-named disciple. The phrase, "Judas of James" has been wrongly translated "Judas the brother of James," on the supposition that the James in question is the brother of our Lord, and that this Judas is identical with the writer of the Epistle of Jude, who calls himself "the brother of James." Joses (Mark xv.40) and Simon the Zelot are added to the band of brothers, and their father is said to be the brother of Joseph the carpenter of Nazareth. These are the names of the so-called brothers of Jesus, and the theory is that they are only cousins. The whole theory, laden with improbabilities, has been invented in the interests of a dogma of the perpetual virginity of Jesus' mother; and must be set aside.
The phrase can only mean "Judas, son of James." And it cannot mean the son of the son of Zabdai, any more than it can mean the brother of the brother of our Lord. He is named just after a James, and if it were any other James who was his father, some distinguishing mark would have been added to this third-mentioned James in the list. Judas, not Iscariot, is the son of the son of Alphai.
The mention of Joses (some MSS. of high authority read "Joseph") a moment ago, suggests another path to pursue in this enquiry into the relationships of the House of Alphai. Among the ministering women who stood looking on at the Crucifixion (Mark xv.40f.; Matt.xxvii.55f.; cf. Luke viii.3, xi.49, 55f, and who came to the garden of the sepulchre (Mark xv.47, xvi.1; Matt.xxvii.61, xxviii.1; Luke xxiv.10), mention is made of "Mary, the mother of James the Little, and of Joses." Sometimes she is called "Mary, the mother of James" (Mark xvi.1), sometimes "Mary, the mother of Joses" (Mark xv.47), sometimes merely "the other Mary" (Matt.xxvii.61, xxviii.1). James and Joses are evidently well-known Christians in the early Church. Can we identify them? From the use of the phrase in Mark's Gospel, Peter was evidently in the habit of referring to one of the well-known Jameses in the early Church as "James the Little." It probably has reference to physical stature, not to importance among the first followers of Jesus. But, though our Bible has wrongly translated it "the Less," yet the epithet is meant as a distinguishing mark. We may be certain it is not Zabdai's son who is referred to, because Salome who follows (in one list) is described (in another) as the mother of Zabdai's sons. We may be almost equally certain it is not the brother of Jesus who is meant. That factof kinship with Jesuswould have been used as distinguishing mark (cf. Gal.i.19); indeed, their mother would have been called the mother of Jesus. Further, it is used as the distinguishing mark of a member of a company in which there were more than one of that name. James, the brother of Jesus, was not one of the disciples. The family disbelieved in Jesuswere estranged from Him during the days of His flesh. And afterwards the brethren of the Lord (Acts i.14, .17,1 Cor.ix.5), and expressly James (Acts xv.13 ; 1 Cor.xv.7; Gal.i.19),although in the letter to Galatia he gets the title "Apostle,"are distinguished from the disciples. Now in the New Testament there is no other group with two Jameses except the disciples. Most probably therefore James the Little is the second James of the disciple circle - James the son of Alphai. That Mary was the mother of Matthew is never asserted, but it is precarious to argue from silence ; and indeed Matthew may have been a son of a former wife of Alphai.
The Fourth Gospel, however, seems to set difficulties in the way of accepting this reading of the facts. The writer tells us that "there stood by the Cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John xix.25). At first sight it might seem that Mary of Klopas was the sister of Jesus' mother. But that there should be two Marys in one family is a very improbable circumstance. And when we turn to the synoptic list of women, where Jesus' mother is not mentioned, there are three names Salome, wife of Zabdai, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Mary Magdalene. So that, besides the mother, the Fourth Gospel probably thinks of three other women, and the same three as the synoptists do ; thus Jesus' mother's sister is Salome of Zabdai. May it not be the delicacy of John, the authority behind the Fourth Gospel, that has withheld the name of his mother? But it follows also that Mary of Klopas is probably the mother of James and Joses.
Here, however, another difficulty confronts us. If James the Little is the son of Alphai, then Alphai is the husband of Mary. The difficulty is not insuperable. That 'Alphai when it is Graecised becomes Kolpa, and then by a common transposition, Klopa is maintained by more than one linguistic scholar. Another view is that "Mary of Klopa" means "Mary the daughter of Klopa." Hegesippus says that Klopa was the brother of Joseph the carpenter. This would make Mary the cousin of Jesus. But even so, it is not impossible that a son and grandson of hers might be in the disciple circle. It does not seem possible, however, to identify Klopas with Kleopas, one of the two who had the wonderful experience on the road to Emmaus. The names are quite different; and Alphai belonged to Capernaum most probably, not to Emmaus. For Mary was one of the ministering women who followed Jesus from Galilee (Mark xv.41). That she was a woman of substance supports our view of the prosperity of Alphai.
If our identifications are correct, the family tree of the House of Alphai might be set down as follows:
| Alphai (Klopas?) = Mary | |||||
| Matthew (Levi) | Joses | James the Little | |||
| (disciple) | (not a disciple) | (disciple) | |||
| Judas | |||||
| (disciple) | |||||
The secret of this family's story, and of the part they played in the early Church, lies, we have said, in the family prejudice, the family observance of convention. It may be that men who have been guided long by the rigid rule of figures tend to become legalists in their moral outlook. But whether it be so in this case or not, what we know of the mother Mary would lead us to suppose her mind was governed by a sense of the importance of convention and ceremony. She was one of the women who watched the Crucifixion. Even when she learned that Jesus had been fitly buried, she came with the Magdalene to identify the site of the grave; for she and her companion had determined that they would risk anything in order to perform the last tender offices of love for the dead body of their Lord. It was the promptings of woman's devoted love, no doubt,and love spending itself, as it is always fain to do, in carrying out the minutest details of the funeral offices. But amid the terror of these days of darkness, love might well be content to know that the Loved One had been decently laid to rest in a proper grave. Yet with infinite courage she resolved to accept the grave risk, that the last punctilio might be performed. It may be that it is her forceful personality that impressed itself so strongly on the other members of the family. Let us try to follow the fortunes of some of them a little further.
The legalistic tendencies of Matthew are apparent in the Gospel that bears his name. He preserved the oracles of the Lord apparently in the fond hope that they would become the laws of the New Covenant. And his reverence for the ancient Law is apparent there also. It is said indeed that in later years he became an ascetic, living on "seeds and nuts and herbs, without flesh" (Clem. Al. Pedag., II. i.16). But it is certain he remained a noble monument to the power of the spirit of Christ, spending himself and being spent in labours for the Master's cause among the people of his own land, and possibly even in wider fields. Whether his end was martyrdom, as tradition sometimes affirms, or otherwise, he doubtless remained true till death to the Lord, who had said to him at the toll-desk, "Follow me."
A less happy fate seems to have been reserved for the other members of the family. The suicide of Judas of Kerioth made a vacancy in the disciple band, which the eleven proceeded to fill when they rallied after the Cross. They laid down as a condition for candidature that the nominees must be from those "who have kept company with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" from the beginning, and witnesses to the resurrection (Acts i.2ff.). The unsuccessful one among those selected as a short leet is named Joseph bar-Sabbas (another reading gives Joses; apparently the forms are interchangeable), also called Justus.
It is quite clear from the Synoptic Gospels that Joses, the son of Mary and Alphai, was a well-known figure in the early Church, better known than his mother, since she is distinguished by reference to him. Probably too he was a follower of Jesus from the days of the beginning. Is there anything to forbid the suggestion that the Joses of the Gospels is the Joseph of the short leet? "Bar-Sabbas" suggests at first sight a difficulty. It seems to mean "son of Sabba." But the best texts spell the word with a double "b," which means most likely that this is a cognomen signifying "Son of the Sabbath." Such a name was sometimes added to that of a child born on the Sabbath day. But perhaps we may be permitted to discern in the title "Justus," although it is a name commonly enough adopted among Jews, another explanation. It might be interpreted as the Latin equivalent of the Greek word used to describe a punctilious observer of the ceremonial law. And there was evidently a strong section in the Jerusalem early Church who were inclined that way. They dominated the congregation by-and-by. The head of the community, James, the Lord's brother, became known as "the Just." And we know from The Acts and from Paul's letters, of the crisis that arose over the admission of the Gentiles. Now one of the very earliest points of contention in Jerusalem must certainly have been about the ceremonial observance of the old Jewish Sabbath. Were the Christians to continue attending synagogue worship? We know that they did at first (Acts iii.1). We have no account of the time when the first day of the week became the Christian day of worship, though at the time of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem we read of him meeting with the Christians at Troas on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread (Acts xx.7). But it is certain that after the martyrdom of Stephen the question of breaking absolutely with the ancient religious regime of Israel must have become acute. Those who fled from Jerusalem at that time were those who took Stephen's view of it. Those who remained were the ones least liable to persecution, since they favoured adherence to the old; and one who took a leading part in the agitation for abiding by the ancient ceremonial may well have been called "bar-Sabbas"a leader of the Sabbath party.
In any case the name is not a patronymic, and does not militate against the suggestion that Joseph bar-Sabbas is Joses, the son of Alphai and Mary. The concern for strict ceremonial which was a trait of Mary, may have been reproduced in the son. At any rate the Joses mentioned in the Gospels was probably a follower of Jesus from the beginning Eusebius says he was one of the Seventyso that there is every likelihood that all the conditions laid down as necessary for membership in the disciple-band are fulfilled in Joses. And we are told of no other Joses who fulfils these requirements. Jesus' brother of that name is ruled out, since he doubtless joined with the family in discrediting Jesus when the family estrangement took place. Joseph of Arimathaea does not fulfil the conditions, since he only joined the disciples after Calvary. Joseph Barnabas, who must not be confused with this man (the name is quite different), evidently did not become a full disciple till Pentecost, though he may have come in contact with Jesus before the Cross. And he became a Gentile missionary, not a Judaising Christian of Jerusalem.
So Joseph bar-Sabbas, who began well as a devoted follower of Jesus, who was privileged to share the Resurrection experiences, seems to have been fated always to fail to rise to the height of his great calling. There is a pathos about his frequent disappointments. He had not to the full measure the all-or-nothing Christ-spirit. Jesus did not fully trust him. He was not called to be a disciple. And though nominated by the rest of the disciples for the vacant place in later days, yet the lot passed him by. Perhaps there was a touch of the bitterness of disappointment about his "Sabbath" agitation; perhaps he was one of those who followed Paul's footsteps trying to undo his work. Paul does sometimes speak of one in particular, who, in his opposition, claimed greater privileges of fellowship with Christ than he. In the letter to the Galatians (according to the best MSS.) we are told about a certain man coming to Antioch, professedly from James the brother of the Lord, and destroying the harmonious fellowship between Peter and the Gentile Christians (Gal.ii.12, cf.v.10). When the Judaisers followed Paul to Corinth, they seem to have borne commendatory letters from the Church in Jerusalem; and they claimed to derive their authority from the Apostles. As events proved, Paul was really God's nominee for the vacant place among the Twelve. And often a defeated aspirant shows a certain dog-in-the-mangerism. We can feel the sting of Paul's sarcasm about the self-commenders in the letter to Corinth (2 Cor.x.18). But one would fain think that Joses moderated his Judaistic tendencies by-and-by. It may be a calumny to suggest that he was ever one of the Judaisers whom Paul complains about. There is, in the letter to Colossae (iv.11), mention of one Jesus, surnamed Justus, who belonged to the circumcision. One ancient document at least identifies him with Joses Justus. And Paul says that he and Mark (so we probably should limit the description) were the only ones of the circumcision who had been a comfort to him. The association may be significant. The unusual word for comfort means that which allays irritation. Mark, too, after proving unworthy, redeemed his reputation later. But the identification of this man with Joses Justus is very problematic. We like to think, however, that the story which Eusebius records of Joses bar-Sabbas
who was also called Justus, is spiritually true at least: "A wonderful event happened respecting Justus surnamed bar-Sabbas, who though, he drank deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious, by the grace of God" (Eus.H. E. III., 39). It was an early incident in the history of the Church; it is probably referred to in Mark (xvi.18).
We have, as we think, one other chapter to record in the history of the House of Alphai. When the dispute between Jewish and Gentile Christianity came to a head in Jerusalem, the Assembly or Council convened to deal with the matter resolved to send a deputation to Antioch to convey their finding to the brethren. This deputation consisted of Judas bar-Sabbas and the prophet Silas (Acts xv.22). Now we may be quite sure that in such a delicate matter the Council would take pains to secure that the deputation to be chosen should fulfil two requirements. The mission was one of conciliation; the decision of the Council was partly of the nature of a compromise. It should be conveyed to the Gentile community by men representative of both sides in the Jerusalem Church. But further, they should be men of such position and influence that the Antiochean Christians should have no cause to complain of discourtesy.
Now the two types of religious outlook which had come into collision were, on the one hand, those who laid all the emphasis on the side of spiritual experience, and, on the other, those who had strong leanings to ceremonial and legal observance. There can be no doubt as to which of these parties Silas represented. He belonged to those who trusted the warm and living manifestation and operation of the Spirit of God among believers. He himself had the charisma, or spiritual gift of utterance; so much so that the Montanists - those ecstatics who sprang up in the second century - reckoned Silas a progenitor of their sect. It is natural to expect, therefore, in his fellow-deputy, a representative of the other party. It is true that Judas is called a prophet as well as Silas (Acts xv.32). But the different ministeries of the Spirit were not sharply marked off from each other at this early date. Paul, for example, was not only an Apostle, but a prophet, a teacher, a healer. So that Judas' gift of exhortation does not preclude us from supposing that he had Judaistic leanings. For again notice the cognomen "bar-Sabbas" (son of the Sabbath). Here, surely is another member of the party that would fain cling to the ancient ceremonies of Israel, and preserve Israel's holy day.
But who was this Judas bar-Sabbas? The other requirement which the deputation had to fulfil was that its members must be "chief men among the brethren" (Acts xv.22). They were men of position and authority. Silas as a prophet, ranked next in spiritual status to the Apostles. He is said to have been one of the Seventy. It is even possible that he received the title "Apostle" (1 Thess.ii.6) - one of those who had "seen the Lord." So that it is more than likely that he had followed Jesus when He lived on earth. But must not the other be of equal rank and dignity, seeing that the Judaistic party were so strong in Jerusalem? Nay, should we not expect that, if the courtesies are to be fully observed in such an important and delicate mission, one of the deputation should, if at all possible, be an actual disciple of Jesus? Only so would the proprieties be fully satisfied. There are no real grounds for assuming that all the disciples except Peter were absent from Jerusalem at this time. Was Judas bar-Sabbas, perchance, an Apostle in this sense? It is surely significant that he is named first, each time the deputation is mentioned (Acts xv, 22, 27, 32). And then, further, as Luke's narrative informs us, "It pleased the Apostles and elders to send chosen men of their own company" (Acts xv.22). Must not the word "Apostles" be taken seriously here? Now there was a Judas still among the Twelve, very possibly the youngest of the Apostles, for he is called "Judas, son of James," who, as we have seen reason to believe, was the second James mentioned in the lists of the Twelve. And the suggestive fact is that it is Luke only who tells us the name was Judas. The other Gospels only give him his by-name. The designations, which Luke applies to the figures, which flit across the pages of his history, are always significant, and it may be that his careful naming of this Apostle (Acts 1.13) has a proleptic reference. May not this be he? From what we know of him, he would be a very suitable member for this deputation. He was a man of courage and vivacity, as his by-names indicate. And no doubt at this very time he was one of the most energetic of the men of weight at the very summit of his powers - in Jerusalem. The one reference to him in the Fourth Gospel gives us a clear hint as to the direction in which his thinking ran. "Lord," said Judas (not Iscariot) "Why is it that you are to appear to us and not to the world?" After all Jesus' teaching of the Twelve, he was still looking for a public manifestation of the Messiah to the world, through the Chosen People. It was one of the conceptions which dominated the early Jewish Church in Palestine. It is all of a piece with our interpretation of the cognomen "bar-Sabbas." But although a strenuous advocate of the Jewish point of view, his temperament was such as to make him acceptable to the Christians of Antioch.
If the family tree which we have traced is correct, this disciple Judas was the nephew of Joses, son of Mary and Alphai. And the cognomen which we find attached to both of them"bar-Sabbas" becomes extremely suggestive. Uncle and nephew were among the chief advocates on the conservative side of the agitation concerning the ancient regime of the Jewish Sabbath,closely allied indeed as leaders of the Sabbath party. The trait which we discovered in the mother of the family of Alphai has repeated itself in a son and a grandson. Yet the younger man had the broader mind. He must have been in favour of the policy of conciliation which the Council had decided to pursue. And the arrangement whereby he became one of the deputation is not without its personal interest. He was sent to allay the strife which the eactreme Judaisers, whoever they were, had raised in Antioch and Jerusalem. If Joses had been active on the extreme side of that agitation, it is a moving thing to see the nephew going down to heal the division which the uncle had helped to bring about. It is a touching family atonement. After storms and separations, bitterness and cavilling, the House of Alphai - this nucleus of the Jewish party in the early Church in Jerusalem - remained true in the end to the Spirit of the Lord, whom they had followed so devotedly while He lived among men.