Chosen
by God
.
by
Carlos Mantica
Introduction
What kind of people did the Lord Jesus chose for
the important mission of extending God's kingdom
on the earth? If you count yourselves among those
who have been called, then maybe you have
wondered, “What has the Lord seen in me that he
liked so much? Has love blinded him?” Or else, you
may have thought, “What a tremendous disciple the
Lord has got!”
One thing is certain, and it is that it was he who
chose us among many who had been called, and he
chose us just as we are. Moreover, as St. Paul the
Apostle reminds us, he chose us the way we were
before we knew him, when we didn’t even like
ourselves.
So the question is still stands –What did the Lord
perceive in me, that he decided to choose me?
There’s some information we have that can be
useful in trying to find out: there are at least
twelve people that we know for sure were
personally called and chosen by him. A few things
have reached us in writing about those people,
which can help us to find out what the Lord saw in
them when he called them.
In this reflection we are going to peer into the
personality of the first twelve chosen ones. He
chose them long before choosing us, but the call
and the mission he gave them were identical to the
ones he gave to us.
Simon and Andrew Johnson
Let’s start with the most visible one – Simon Johnson.
The Gospels mention him 195 times. The one who
comes closest is John (29 times), while the rest
of them together only reach 130 times.
The first clue about Peter’s personality can be
seen from his very first encounter with Jesus. We
know it was his brother Andrew who introduced
Jesus to him, and sometimes we think Andrew told
John, “I’ll be right back, I’m going to call my
brother,” and then he went to McDonald’s at the
corner and fetched him. But it wasn’t so. Because
John the Baptist is preaching in Bethany of
Galilee – not the Bethany close to Jerusalem where
Lazarus used to live, but a Bethany that is on the
other side of the Jordan River, near the place
where this river flows into the Dead Sea, 100
miles away. And Peter does not hesitate to
undertake that long trip in order to go and chat
with Jesus.
First clue: these are people who are about looking
for something, and are willing to take the trouble
to find it. The Lord likes people like that. Later
on he tells the crowd that if anyone seeks he will
find, and if anyone knocks it shall be opened to
him.
Though it’s hard to separate religious from
political matters when it comes to the Jews, what
they are looking for is not a religious leader.
They are looking for someone who is going to
deliver Israel. They are looking for the expected
Messiah.
When Peter comes near Jesus, Jesus doesn’t even
let Andrew introduce him, but takes the initiative
and says: ‘So you are Simon Bar-Jona? You
shall be called Peter’ (John 1:42, personal
translation). ‘Bar-Jona’ means ‘John’s son’ or
‘Jonah’s son’, though some exegetes have suggested
it comes from an Accadian root meaning
‘terrorist’. We know Peter had at least one sword
to hide, and he draws it out when he cuts Malchus’
ear. But let’s move on to a different matter.
Jesus has given him a new name right away. We must
not forget that for the Jews, giving someone a new
name means to give him a destiny, a vocation.
Furthermore, it can only be given by someone with
authority over him – a father gives a name to his
son, a master to his servant. And Jesus doesn’t
just give him a name, but changes the one he
already had and gives him a new one, as he has
done with most of us. With this he is indicating
that he is the Lord, and that his authority over
us is larger than anyone else’s, including that of
our very parents.
The Gospel does not say whether Peter had anything
to reply. He possibly said nothing. He was
astonished. Not saying anything is very common in
Peter, who ruminates things internally. Like Mary,
he is someone who keeps things in his heart even
if he doesn’t understand them for the time being.
He meditates on them and, as we shall see, this
leads him to deep convictions which he then
expresses courageously.
Another trait in Peter is that he’s a man who
wants to know the truth about everything, and will
not keep quiet unless he finds out. When the
others do not ask, he asks instead of them, even
if no one has appointed him as the representative.
That feature is also very frequent in leaders I
know.
In Luke 8:43-48, for instance, the incident of the
woman with the flow of blood is told. The Lord
asks, “‘Who was it that touched me?’” And
guess who answers the question that was not
addressed to him! “Peter said, ‘Master, the
multitudes surround you and press upon you!’”
Peter is one who is always attentive to everything
his Master does, says or goes through.
In Matthew 15:15 he asks for the meaning of a
difficult doctrine. The Lord is mentioning the
topic that it is not what comes into the mouth
that defiles a man, but what comes out of his
mouth. The Pharisees are furious because this goes
against all the laws about ritual impurity. “But
Peter said to him, ‘Explain the parable to us.’”
To begin with, this is not a parable but a
teaching; but it’s all the same for Peter, because
he doesn’t understand either of them anyway. But
Peter wants to know and to understand, and he
never ceases to ask about what he does not
understand.
In Matthew 18:21 he asks the Lord: “Lord, how
often shall my brother sin against me, and I
forgive him?” That’s the way he gradually
gets to know how his Master thinks and feels.
In Mark 11:21 he asks about the fig tree that has
dried up, and the Lord teaches them about the
power of prayer.
In Matthew 19:27 he wants to know what he can
expect for himself, and tells Jesus, “Lo, we
have left everything and followed you. What then
shall we have?” Then the Lord promises them
twelve thrones, and to all who leave everything
for him he offers a hundredfold in this life, and
eternal life as a bonus. A man who doesn’t talk
about these things with the Lord will never find
out about the perfect plan the Lord has for each
of us.
He has a deep familiarity with his Lord, and he
also cares for his friends to the point of
inquiring into things that are none of his
concern. In John 21:21 he asks what John’s future
will be. We all know the answer – “What is
that to you?”
This desire of his to know and to understand
everything the Master says, this desire to know
even his deepest thoughts and plans, will lead
Peter to be the first one to discover, to
internalize and to proclaim what others keep
silent about. Jesus asks his disciples, “Who
do men say that the Son of man is?” And once
again, without having been appointed the group’s
speaker, it is Peter that answers: “You are
the Christ, the Son of the living God”
(Matthew 16:13-16).
Knowing his Master intimately and loving him
deeply makes it possible for Peter to accept even
things he does not understand, and to remain
faithful to his teaching even if all the others
forsake him.
In John 6 Jesus tells a sublime piece of
foolishness. He is talking about the most
beautiful of all his miracles, about the most
sublime of all his mysteries:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink
his blood, you have no life in you.” ... Many of
his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This
is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” ...
After this many of his disciples drew back and
no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the
twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon
Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life; and we have
believed, and have come to know, that you are
the Holy One of God.” (vv. 53, 60, 66-69)
Even when he does not understand a single bit,
nothing can now separate him from his Lord. To
this date, this continues to be the supreme test
for a disciple – remaining faithful to the Lord
when we do not understand or when we do not like
his teaching, when we would rather have a
different doctrine, more to our taste. Peter
passes the test.
Up to now we have seen a little of Peter’s mind.
Let’s now peer into his heart.
Peter is all heart. That’s why he is impulsive –
first he acts, then he thinks about it.
“You shall never wash my feet,” he assures
Jesus. And four seconds later: Yes, go ahead,
don’t just wash my feet but also my hands and
even my head! (cf. John 13:8-9).
It is his impulsiveness too that leads him to draw
out his sword at Gethsemane, without thinking
about the consequences. Had it not been so dark,
he would have cut Malchus’ head!
That’s why he jumps from the boat to walk on the
water. The Lord has said, “Come!”, and
that’s enough for him. He goes ahead, without
calculating his faith.
In the lake of Tiberias, after the resurrection,
he jumps to the water with his clothes on, because
he has seen Jesus on the shore. “It is the
Lord!” (John 21:7). The others draw near
slowly, in the boat, dragging the net full of
fish. Peter just can’t wait.
At the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are still
with the Lord when Peter interjects his comment –
It’s really good to be here! Why don’t we set up
three booths?
It is for the same reason that he promises things
he does not know if he will fulfill. “Peter
declared to him, ‘Though they all fall away
because of you, I will never fall away.’ Jesus
said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, this very
night, before the cock crows, you will deny me
three times.’ Peter said to him, ‘Even if I must
die with you, I will not deny you” (Matthew
26:33-35).
That’s something he was never cured of. I’m sure
that he himself told his executioners, “I’m
not worthy to die just like my Master. Crucify
me upside down!”
In my view there are three passages that reflect
Peter’s hear in a special way. The first one is in
fact quite funny, and can be found in Matthew
17:24. Some Jews come to Peter and ask, “Does
not your teacher pay the tax?” They were
referring to the half-shekel or didrachma, a
yearly tax that was paid to the temple – two mere
drachmas. And Peter answers, ‘Why, yes... (How can
you even think he would not pay it?)’ Brothers and
sisters, one thing is certain: at least the
didrachma of that year had not been paid by either
of them. And Peter covers up the fiscal evasion of
his teacher... and of yours truly. Jesus must have
found that this response of Peter’s was quite
funny, because he then commands him to cast the
hook, and tells him that in the fish he catches he
will find the exact amount to pay the tax for both
of them.
The point is that Peter is willing to do
absolutely any foolish thing for his Master’s
sake. He’s willing to lie to the IRS... and to
look for money in the mouth of a fish.
The second foolish action is tragic and comic at
once, and can be found in Matthew 16:22. Jesus has
announced his inevitable death. Peter grabs him by
the arm, takes him aside and scolds him: ‘Don’t
even think about it! Everything can be happen, but
no one is going to mess around with you!’ And
Jesus, who has paid and will still pay blood sweat
to accept his Father’s will, replies with one of
the two strongest expressions in the Gospel
– “Get behind me, Satan!”
Not even for the Pharisees did Jesus have such
hard words. There is only one more expression that
can be compared to this one in its harshness, and
Jesus tells it to the person he loves most in the
world – his mother, and for the very same reason.
Jesus has been accused of healing with the power
of Satan, and they want to kill him. Mary, just
like Peter, does not want them to kill him, so she
comes with some relatives saying that people
should not pay attention to what Jesus is saying,
because he’s out of his mind. When Jesus is told
that his relatives are outside waiting for him, he
replies: “‘Who is my mother, and who are my
brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his
disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my
brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father
in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother’”
(Matthew 12:48-50).
The mother I knew is not this one, but the one
that said her fiat – “Behold, I am the handmaid of
the Lord; let it be done to me according to your
word.” When her own life is in jeopardy (for
Joseph could have charged her with adultery), Mary
does not hesitate to do the will of the Father.
But this time it is her kid’s life that is in
danger, and love does not let her think. And her
son, who inherited his mother’s loving heart, is
now willing to do, out of love, an action of
foolishness which is a thousand times bigger than
wanting to save one’s own son, namely, deciding to
save all of us here, by hanging from a cross, and
then asking the Father to forgive us because we
are crazy and do not know what we are doing.
But we who love him need to know that, even though
he is willing to withstand many things, there is
one thing he will not tolerate even if it comes
from his mother – that is, going against the will
of his heavenly Father. When he was very young, at
twelve, he cautioned his mother about this at the
temple.
Now Peter’s final act of foolishness, motivated by
love, is the one he commits on the evening of the
arrest at Gethsemane: he goes to stick his nose
into Caiaphas’ house.
He does this after the Lord’s warning: “Peter,
this very night, before the cock crows, you will
deny me three times.” Christ would rather have his
beloved Peter not take a risk so he could be
spared, even if, to avoid danger, Peter has to
flee like the rest. And, out of love, he now does
exactly what Peter and Mary did. They were willing
to have the Messiah escape the cross, in order to
spare their dear Jesus such a suffering. Jesus
gives Peter a chance to escape his denial by
warning him in advance. The passion as a whole is
but an absurd drama of love.
And Peter denied his Master, just as he had been
warned he would. The others are at peace, safe and
hiding. They will never deny their Master as Peter
did. Two-thousand years later, people continue to
remember Peter as the coward who denied him. They
forget that this happened to him because he loved
Jesus so much, and they forget how things actually
happened. Because this is what actually took
place:
If we want to understand the magnitude of Peter’s
imprudence, we have to read John, who relates it
as follows:
Simon Peter followed Jesus [and the
band of soldiers], and so did another disciple.
As this disciple was known to the high priest,
he entered the court of the high priest along
with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the
door. So the other disciple, who was known to
the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid
who kept the door, and brought Peter in. The
maid who kept the door said to Peter, “Are you
not also one of this man’s disciples?” (John
18:15-17)
Strike one! Let’s now go to Matthew 26:71 and
following:
And when he went out to the porch,
ANOTHER maid saw him, and she said to the
by-standers: “This man was with Jesus of
Nazareth.” (The second explosion of adrenaline!)
...After a little while the by-standers came up
and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one
of them, for your accent betrays you.”
By this time, Peter is already dripping sweat.
Let’s now go back to John 18:26-27:
One of the servants of the high
priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had
cut off, asked: “Did I not see you in the garden
with him?” Peter again denied it; and at once
the cock crowed.
Peter was overcome by fear. Jesus, who a few hours
before knew dread at Gethsemane, understands him.
Peter is no coward, because the things he got into
out of love were sheer madness. He was daring,
irresponsible, and love-crazy, but that’s a whole
different matter. And Jesus knows this: ‘Simon, do
you love me?’ ‘Lord, you know that I love you!’
‘Yes, Peter, but, do you love me more than these?’
And Peter does not blame his brothers, because he
loves them too, although he knows they behaved
worse than he. ‘Lord, you know that I love you.
Let’s not make unpleasant comparisons. I did
wrong, and the sins of others are no justification
for mine.’
And this is how I imagine the rest of the story:
Simon Johnson, do you remember when I said, ‘You
are Peter’? You have spent three years trying to
find out who I am and what I want you to do. Now I
can tell you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against her. Jesus did this, because,
like someone else that had loved so much, much was
forgiven to him who had loved much.
Brothers and sisters, this is Peter. A man like
many of you, with a lot of defects. He is
impulsive, daring, blunt, talkative, bragging,
rash, irresponsible, a meddler, and maybe even a
little self-interested. But he is someone who has
placed all his human qualities at the service of
the Lord, and his whole personality is centered
upon hope and empowered by love.
Andrew the Apostle
I would now like to say a few things about his
brother Andrew.
When the list of the twelve is given, Andrew is
always mentioned in the second place, next to his
brother Peter. However, in the three Synoptic
gospels, Andrew is not mentioned even once, except
in the full list of the twelve. John, who is his
buddy in being together with the Baptist and in
seeking the Messianic kingdom, is the only author
who talks about him. He does so in three
instances, and in each of them Andrew is
introducing someone else to Jesus.
The first time, it is his brother Peter (John
1:40-42).
The second time, he introduces to Jesus the boy
who had the five loaves that Jesus was to multiply
(John 6:8-9).
And the third time he is introducing the Greeks
who wanted to speak to Jesus, after Philip did not
dare introducing them (John 12:20-22).
However, there is nothing in Andrew that would
suggest the image of a silly guy. I imagine him
serious, silent, firm, unselfish, willing to
serve. He is not concerned about being the hero in
the movie. His role is to facilitate and to make
it possible for things to happen. He is the
perfect assistant. He is the right hand of the
leader, who is always next to him, but who is not
concerned about being the focus of attention. And
yet he was the first, together with John, to know
and follow Christ, and stays with him to the end.
He is the first one to talk about Jesus and to win
Peter over for the Lord. Unlike Peter, he does not
ask what his reward will be. His reward is being
together with Jesus. I know many leaders like
Andrew. There are many things that would not be
possible without them. God needs people like
Andrew.
Let’s move on to the rest of them, because we can
learn something from each of them.
James and John
Let’s now consider John the fisherman, the son of
Zebedee, and then we will talk about his brother
James. Jesus knew John already. After John hears
John the Baptist say that Jesus is the Lamb of
God, whose shoes he is not worthy to untie, he
follows Jesus together with Andrew, and they stay
with him for a couple of days in the wilderness.
‘Master, where do you live?’ ‘Come and you’ll
see!’ But he only calls him now, when John is
mending the nets together with his father and the
servants (Matthew 4:21, Mark 1:19). If they have
servants and a boat, that means they are not poor.
It’s obvious that they rub shoulders with priestly
families, and that’s why we see John enter the
house of the High Priest on the evening of Jesus’
arrest and trial, which he could somehow listen
to.
It is likely that they were cousins to the Lord.
Near the cross there appears one Salome, the
sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:25),
who is the mother of the sons of Zebedee, that is,
James and John (Matthew 27:56). Let us remember
that, after the death of Jesus, it is John that
takes care of his mother. Maybe this kinship led
them to believe they had a right to be Jesus’
ministers in his Kingdom (sheer nepotism!) and
they sent their mother for lobbying. The Lord
doesn’t even pay attention to the woman, but he
turns to his cousins and asks, ‘Are you able to
drink the cup that I am to drink?’ ‘Oh, sure!’,
the two young angels reply. ‘Oh, really? Well, I
can guarantee that: you are going to drink it! As
for the rest of the story, we shall see...’ (cf.
Mark 10:39). One of the two, James, is then the
first of the Twelve to die for Jesus Christ,
executed by Herod (Acts 12:1-2).
The Lord nicknamed them ‘The Sons of Thunder’. If
we remember that John was the last one to write a
gospel, and by then he was so old that people had
begun to think he would never die, it seems to me
that the image that his writings convey is the
image of a mature John, with the sweetness and
placidness of old age. It is not the same John who
walked with Jesus when he was a lively, impulsive
young boy. I also think he was melted and
transformed by love, which is his favorite topic.
Because the John we see in the Synoptic Gospels is
the young Son of Thunder. He does not hesitate to
walk a hundred miles to go and listen to a crazy
hairy fellow who wears a goat skin and proclaims
the revolution. He is the one who, just like
Peter, goes into the house of Caiaphas on the
evening of the arrest. He is the one who, in
Gethsemane, runs away naked escaping from the
hands of a guard, letting go of his clothes just
like we used to do with our shirts in our
childhood’s games. He is the only one of the
Twelve who is present by the cross, and he is the
first one to run and arrive at the empty tomb when
he hears from Mary that his Lord is risen.
Since he had been a disciple of John the Baptist,
it seems he inherited part of the Baptist’s
temper. In Luke 9:49-56 he has two consecutive
fits of anger. He first forbids someone who was
casting out demons in Jesus’ name, ‘because he’s
not one of us’, he explains to the Lord. Who knows
what John did to the poor old exorcist! And
immediately afterwards, when the Lord sends
messengers before him to find lodging in Samaria,
and the Samaritans don’t want to receive them,
John wants to start a big mess: “And when his
disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord,
do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven
and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them.
And they went on to another village” (Luke
9:54-56).
That’s my John! Not because he wants to destroy
those who refuse to open their houses to Jesus’
disciples, but because he has taken seriously the
power the Lord has given them, and is open to bid
fire come down from heaven and to have heaven obey
him. Maybe one of these days the Lord will give us
permission to do likewise.
We don’t know who transformed John and made him
humble, reflexive, profound in the knowledge of
great truths, submissive, and one who, above all,
focused everything on love. It might have been his
new Mother (“John, behold your Mother!”), from
whom he never separated. Humble, like Mary, who is
never on the forefront, John does not mention his
own name even a single time in the gospel he
wrote. Reflexive, like her who used to keep all
things in her heart, he will be the first great
Christian theologian. Submissive like her in her
‘behold the handmaiden of the Lord, let it be done
to me according to your word’. And loving like her
who took us as her children, just as he took her
as his mother.
Philip and Nathanael
I would now like to refer to my favorite apostle,
Philip, and his great convert, Nathanael. I follow
that order because that is the order in which the
Lord called them. The way John tells it is
surprising. He says:
The next day Jesus decided to go to
Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him,
“Follow me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the
city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found
Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found him
of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets
wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
(John 1: 43-45)
If we take John’s chronology literally, the call
of the fishermen has not taken place yet, and
Philip turns out to be the first disciple to whom
Christ says, “Follow me.” He is the first one to
be called.
And Philip’s peculiar behavior begins to manifest
itself right there. Because what characterizes
Philip is that, just as, according to the gospels,
Jesus Christ did everything right, Philip did
everything wrong. We shall see this shortly, but
from this first mention of Philip, his own
character is clearly portrayed.
First of all, Scripture does not say that he knew
Christ beforehand or that Christ knew him. Christ
only says, “Follow me!”, and Philip follows him
without hesitation. He does not ask, he does not
think about it, he just signs on. That’s Philip.
Second, he immediately takes the long run and goes
to look for Nathanael, who is the least likely man
to be persuaded in all Galilee.
And when he finds him, he just messes the whole
thing. Because he says, “We have found the one
Moses wrote about in the Law, and the prophets
too”, and “we have found” involves many people. In
any case, it was the Messiah who found him. Then
he says that Moses wrote in the Law about the
Messiah, and none of us has been able to find
anything in the Law that speaks about the Messiah.
And finally he says, “He is Jesus of Nazareth, the
son of Joseph.” Another big mistake, because
Nathanael is from Cana, which is just next to
Nazareth, and his response is, ‘If he were the
Messiah and he came from Nazareth, I surely would
have heard about him already; and besides, can
anything good come from Nazareth?’ And Philip
finally adds that Jesus is the son of Joseph. He
is the only in the whole Bible who calls him that
way. Not very long ago I read an argument by a
theologian who asserted that Christ had not been
conceived by the Holy Spirit, and he cited
Philip’s words as an authority. So he continues to
cause trouble!
We will look at Nathanael later. Let’s stick with
Philip for the time being.
We already saw that, when a group of Greeks ask to
speak to Jesus, Philip does not dare tell him
directly, and asks Andrew for help, because Andrew
will be heard by Jesus, while Philip is shy. The
Lord does not heed either of them and pays no
attention to the Greeks at all. The question is,
why did the Greeks look for Philip? And the answer
is, because Philip is a Greek name (philos -
hippos: friend of horses). If we take into account
that Caesarea Philippi is not far north from
Bethsaida, in the province of Caesarea, and that
this was a Romanized Roman colony, and that all
Romans were admirers of Greek culture, then it’s
almost a fact that Philip spoke Greek. Philip was,
then, some kind of “Miami Boy” – he spoke the
“English” of his time! And he was an educated,
cultivated man, because from the very beginning he
shows Nathanael his exegetical ability concerning
the announced Messiah.
In John 14:6, the Lord is trying to explain to
them something about himself as the image and
stamp of the Father, something Paul grasped easily
some time afterwards. The Lord says to them, “‘If
you had known me, you would have known my Father
also; henceforth you know him and have seen
him.’ Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the
Father, and we shall be satisfied.’ Jesus said to
him, ‘[You stupid!] I have been with you so long,
and yet you do not know me, Philip? [I just told
you ten seconds ago that] He who has seen me has
seen the Father!’”
It even seems that the Lord found Philip amusing,
and that he made jokes to him. In John 6, the
feeding of the crowd is told. “Lifting up his
eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming
to him, Jesus said to Philip, ‘How are we to buy
bread, so that these people may eat?’” And
Scripture remarks clearly, “This he said to test
him” – that is, to tease him. They are in a
deserted place, and so much bread couldn’t have
been found even at the largest supermarket in
Jerusalem, but Philip produces his calculator and
begins to figure out just in case, and replies:
“‘Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread
for each of them to get a little.’” This is where
Andrew, who is more practical and who had already
assessed the situation, says to the Lord: “‘There
is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two
fish; but what are they among so many?’” – in
other words, it’s better if we eat those, just us.
There is a friend of mine who gets very upset at
me when I tell him that there is a mistake in the
Acts of the Apostles. I say that the Philip
mentioned in Acts 8 cannot be Philip the deacon,
but has to be our Philip.
First, because it is not reasonable that, when the
deacons have just been appointed because there are
problems with distributing food and caring for the
widows, all the newly appointed go out to
evangelize.
Second, because when the disciples were dispersed
due to the persecution in Jerusalem, nobody but
Philip could have decided to begin with the
Samaritans, who did not suffer seeing a Jew at a
hundred yards and would not even talk to them, as
we learned in the passage about the Samaritan
woman.
Third, because he then went to evangelize in
Caesarea, which was Philip’s backyard. Fourth,
because his formidable apostolic success was to
persuade a eunuch who was being carried lying on a
chariot, and Philip goes up to the chariot in
order to evangelize him. He is suddenly caught up
by the Spirit, and ends up in Azotus, in the
middle of nowhere. And finally, because when he
baptizes his converts he does so with John’s
baptism and just forgets to baptize them in the
name of Jesus Christ. All of this bears the
unmistakable mark of Philip.
But, leaving jokes aside, all of us have met many
Philips. In my experience, these are the ones who
actually persuade and conquer the most difficult
men. They are simple people, with pure hearts. The
only thing they want to do is serve, and they
don’t care if they feel unable to do what they are
asked. They just go and do whatever you ask, and
don’t even worry about getting ready. They usually
end up getting what you intended, even if in the
process they have done the most absurd things and
you feel like strangling them. In a retreat they
will let out ten heresies and almost kill the
leader with a heart attack, but people get
converted. Don’t ask them to be coordinators of a
community because they will sink it down, but
other than that you can ask them for whatever you
may want. They rely totally on the Lord.
These men are pure in heart. They will usually
show a smile on their lips, which does not
disappear even when they are sleeping. “Truly I
tell you, if you do not become like children, you
will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” And Philip
is already in the best seat. And, to increase our
envy, he is the only one that can be called an
apostle of the apostles.
Nathanael
Let’s now refer to Philip’s first
conquest – Nathanael, also known as Bartholomew.
He reminds me a lot about one of our candidates
for President of Nicaragua. He is sharp, blunt,
self-sufficient, bossy and even rude... but he is
a leader. The way Jesus approaches him is
interesting, because Jesus would never flatter
anybody’s ears, yet he calls him this way:
“Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no
guile!” And Nathanael proudly responds, “How do
you know me?” That was a mistake! “Jesus answered
him, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were
under the fig tree, I saw you.’” Nathanael turned
white and could only say: “Rabbi, you are the Son
of God! You are the King of Israel!” So that was
the end of it.
No one ever found out what Nathanael was doing
under the fig tree. But it must have been
something private. In my group we have several
theories, but I am not going to tell you what they
are.
We also know that kind of leader – serious,
monolithic, devoted to study, possibly a friend of
debates and lofty lucubrations [learned and
laborious piece of writing]. When he says yes it’s
yes, when says no it’s no. He accepts no
compliments, no threats, no promises. You can
count on him and rely on him. He will always do
the honest thing. He does not care about pleasing
everyone. So never appoint him as P.R. manager.
He’s got only one weakness: Philip. He is willing
to do anything for a friend, if he is asked with
purity of heart as Philip would.
Matthew, the Tax Collector
Let’s now refer to Matthew, also called Levi, the
tax collector. Jesus himself calls him. In Mark
2:14 we read, “And as he passed on, he saw Levi
the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and
he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and
followed him.”
Period. He had possibly listened to Jesus’
teachings at the lake shore, and that was enough
for him to follow Jesus. This was something very
difficult for a well-off man, as tax collectors
certainly were, for they bought the franchise to
the Romans and paid beforehand a percentage of
what the Romans figured they had to collect. They
could not afford not to collect, and some Roman
soldiers would help them exact their money from
the people. There were reasons enough for the Jews
to despise them, as they not only made their
profit at the people’s expense, but also
strengthened the oppressing Empire with the taxes
they collected.
Looked down by all, Matthew must have been a man
who resented society as a whole – his fellow Jews
and Romans alike. He would only interact with
others like him. That is why, immediately after
his conversion, he gathers all those people at a
dinner where he invites Jesus and his disciples:
“And as he sat at table in the house
[of Matthew], behold, many tax collectors and
sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his
disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they
said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher
eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” (Matthew
9:9-11).
In Zeffirelli’s movie Jesus of Nazareth,
Peter refuses to enter Matthew’s house. In fact,
it is almost certain that the disciples rejected
and avoided Matthew as much as other people did,
because in the four gospels Matthew never speaks
up. His silence is very eloquent, when we are
reminded of his incredible mastery of Scripture
and of the messianic prophecies that were
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. His silence does not
indicate a lack of commitment, as can be proven by
the fact that he wrote the most meticulous and
keen of the Synoptic Gospels. He is someone who is
alert, who absorbs everything he hears and sees,
and mentally collates it with his knowledge about
the one who was to come.
In my opinion, the hardest conversion in the group
of the Twelve is that of this shy, silent man.
Rich and rejected at once – this is a mixture that
leads to deep bitterness. We can see that all
around us. He was possibly disgusted at himself.
And now he finds himself surrounded by a group of
patriots, whose involvement goes from supporters
or sympathizers of the revolution, such as Peter,
James, Andrew and John, to the case of Simon the
Zealot, one of the guerrilla fighters of those
days, whose change in heart must have been very
slow.
Behind the face of someone who is able to take
such an immediate and hard step, and able to
endure for years such an unequal relationship,
there can only be a man with very deep
convictions, with very firm decisions, and with a
great devotion for his Master.
It is my conviction that the thing that changed
Matthew’s heart forever was the response Jesus
gave that day: “‘Those who are well have no need
of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and
learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not
sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners’” (Matthew 9:12-13).
Thomas, the Twin
Let’s now talk about Thomas. For many he is the
unbeliever in the group. We may change our minds
once we get to know him.
Thomas is a valiant, aggressive man, which is not
often the case in men that have no faith. Shortly
before Jesus’ triumphant entrance to Jerusalem,
his enemies have already made the decision to kill
Jesus, and the apostles get wind. They are
informed about Lazarus’ death, and Jesus decides
to go to Bethany, which is very close to
Jerusalem. “Thomas, called the Twin, said to his
fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die
with him’” (John 11:16). When things are clear,
Thomas does not hesitate.
But there is an incident which reflects the fact
that he is someone who needs clear explanations.
Says Jesus in John 14:2-5:
“In my Father’s house are many rooms;
if it were not so, would I have told you that I
go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and
prepare a place for you, I will come again and
will take you to myself, that where I am you may
be also. And you know the way where I am going.”
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where
you are going; how can we know the way?” Jesus
said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and
the life.”
Let’s examine the scene. The Lord is announcing
sublime things: he has to go soon to the Father’s
house, that is, he is going to be killed. He wants
his disciples to be with him for all eternity, and
therefore he will come back and take them with
himself. At a moment like that there is one, like
many I know, who interrupts the talk at its peak,
and says, “Hold it! Take it easy and explain.
Leave poetry aside. Tell me how things really
are.” This is Thomas. It is not that he does not
believe; it is rather that he likes to grasp
things with their name. In times of danger, it is
unnamed things that are most harmful.
I am not going to contradict my Lord, who is the
first one to call Thomas an unbeliever. I agree,
Thomas is not credulous like Philip, who, when he
first hears the statement, “We have found the
Messiah!”, he is persuaded right there that,
whoever this So-and-so is that they found, he must
be the expected Messiah. But Thomas is not an
unbeliever, nor is he more an incredulous than the
rest. Jesus called Peter “man of little faith”.
Neither did Peter or John believe Mary the
Magdalene, or Joan, or Mary the mother of James,
the story of the empty tomb (Luke 24:9), and if
they run to look for evidence it is precisely to
persuade themselves. Neither did they believe the
men from Emmaus; in fact, they were debating about
that when Jesus appeared to them.(Lk. 24:36).
In John 20:19 Jesus appears before his disciples,
and Thomas is not there. The only thing the others
say is, “We have seen the Lord!” That was the same
thing the three crazy women had said when they
came with their story on Easter Sunday. And
Thomas’ response is, “Come on! Did he die, or
didn’t he? If he died then he’s dead, and
therefore, unless I stick my finger in the mark of
the nails and my hand in his side, I will not
believe that he’s alive, because there’s no one
who can be alive after that kind of death. And if
he’s not alive he’s dead. Period.”
It is not that he doesn’t believe that the others
saw Jesus. I believe there are people who have
seen flying saucers. What I don’t believe in is
the flying saucers. It’s the same with Thomas. In
his mental categories there is simply no room for
the concept of resurrection. And that’s fully
understandable. No one had risen from the dead
like that before, nor has risen afterwards. John
needed a special vision to understand it:
“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as
though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me,
saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last,
and the living one; I died, and behold I am
alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death
and Hades” (Revelation 1:17-18).
The idea of resurrection finds no room in the
minds of the other apostles either. Luke says
that, startled and frightened, they thought they
were seeing a spirit (Luke 24:37). And that’s a
different thing. The idea that when we die there
is some part of us that remains for ever was
accepted by the Jewish people. But the idea of the
resurrection of the flesh is a different thing.
The statement of the angel at the garden, “Why do
you seek the living among the dead? He is
not here, he is risen!” (that is, he had died, but
now lives), is totally new.
It is not a matter of, “we do not die completely,
but something remains”. Much less, “we thought he
had died, but it seems it was not so.” But rather,
“he died truly, and was completely dead. R.I.P.
Corpse. Cold tomb. Now he is risen and is
completely alive in body and soul and divinity.”
John says this quite clearly in John 20:8:
Then the other disciple, who reached
the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and
believed; for as yet they did not know the
scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
All the others also needed to touch him before
they believed. “See my hands and my feet, that it
is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has
not flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke
24:39). And Luke says that even so they had a hard
time believing.
Thomas’ faith was already staggering, as is shown
by the fact that the preceding Sunday he didn’t
even show up at the gathering. Now they come to
Thomas with the story that they had the doors
closed, that Jesus appeared among them going
through the walls, and that then he disappeared.
“No kidding! Now tell me the one about Little Red
Riding Hood.” It is not that he does not believe
that he was there and that they saw him. It is
rather that he does not understand something he
has no reason to understand. We ourselves don’t
understand it yet. And Thomas is the kind of man
who needs to understand.
What now takes place is truly unbelievable! The
man who used not to believe in resurrection now
proclaims, after he has touched Jesus’ flesh, now
believes in something one thousand times harder to
believe: “My Lord and my God!” He now believes in
a God who is flesh and bone! He believes in a man
who is God and a God who is a man, flesh and bone
just like us. Nobody up to that point had believed
such a stupid idea. Gods who disguise themselves
as men, like Zeus, yes. Men sent by God? As many
as you may want! Men who are demi-gods, surely.
Sons of God? Blasphemy! They condemned the
Nazarene precisely because he asserted that about
himself. But true God from true God, begotten and
therefore flesh, but not made, of the same being
as the Father, and yet like unto us in everything
except in sin... never!
It is possible that at that very time Thomas was
able to understand where we are going and what is
the way.
“And when I go and prepare a place for
you, I will come again and will take you to
myself, that where I am you may be also.” He who
used not to believe was beyond doubt the first
one to understand the reason of our hope.
The Unknown Ones
We are running out of time, so I will say a couple
of things about James the Lesser, Simon the Zealot
and Jude Thaddaeus.
The gospels say nothing about James the Lesser,
except that he was a cousin of Jesus, the son of
another Mary, a sister of the mother of Jesus. We
have a letter by him that gives us a picture of
his heart, but which I have no time to comment on
right now. He hates envy, gossiping and lies, and
loves mercy and understanding.
Even less do we know about Jude Thaddaeus, the
younger brother of this James, and therefore also
a cousin of Jesus. A letter is also ascribed to
him, which shows that he was a deep-hearted man.
Darkness also covers Simon the Zealot, or Simon
the Cananaean, the surnames being synonyms that
express his belonging to the most revolutionary
Jewish group in the times of Jesus.
The Traitor
And with this we come to Judas Iscariot. We can
believe that also Judas was a revolutionary. Some
think that his surname “Iscariot” is not derived
from “Sichar”, which could indicate his origin,
but from sicarius, a kind of knife or dagger used
by the Zealots of that time.
We already know that he was fond of money, and
that he protests when the repentant woman sinner
wastes away (in his view) an extremely valuable
ointment (about $70 USA tax free) whose value
could have been given to the poor. John says he
was a thief, that he managed the group’s funds.
And he sold Jesus.
But it is right here that things don’t seem to fit
well. Someone who knows the price of things, and
who is ambitious, will not send a man as dangerous
as Jesus for thirty silver coins, which was the
price of an ordinary slave. Nor will he throw away
the money at the temple afterwards.
Almost all Scripture exegetes agree that he joined
Jesus, like almost all the others, with a
political messianism in mind. That his
disappointment grew gradually as he saw Jesus take
a different road. In the last few days Jesus did
nothing but announce his own death, and a dead
Messiah is no use... except perhaps as a very
timely martyr. There are some who believe, and
they may be right, that Judas’ intention in
facilitating the death of Jesus was to kindle the
spark that would provoke the revolution, as we had
in Nicaragua with the death of Pedro Joaquín
Chamorro.
Final Considerations
The figure of Judas serves for us to close this
reflection with something that is valid for all.
Christ chose Judas just like he chose the others.
And he chose him so that he would become one of
the twelve pillars of his kingdom. He chose him
after having spent a whole night in prayer, and he
did so because he expected him to be so and
because he knew he was able to. It was not
destiny, much less Christ himself, that made Judas
a traitor. It was Judas who chose to betray. And
even after his betrayal has been made known,
Christ continues to call him “Friend.”
Jesus chose him in hope, knowing that out of him,
just as out of any of the others, a saint or a
traitor could come out. And that is the notion I
wanted to leave you with, for Jesus also chose all
of you personally.
All Jesus’ chosen ones were raw diamonds. They had
qualities and defects. Some had more, some had
less. None of them had the stature to carry out
the mission he entrusted to them. The Acts of the
Apostles present them as illiterate and plebeians
(Acts 4:13). In my opinion, the worst sign of
their weakness does not lie in having allowed fear
to overcome them, but in having allowed tiredness
to overcome them – this tiredness that finds them
asleep at the moment the Lord needs them most. One
could say that the Lord chose them not because of
what they were, but because of what they could
become in his hands. Lest any man should boast, as
Saint Paul would say.
And the same happens with everyone of us. Among us
there are Peters and Andrews, Thomases and
Philips, Nathanaels and Matthews, James and Johns,
Simons the Zealots and Thaddeuses. We are all
different, but there is something that is in all
of us, and this is the terrible potential to
become saints or traitors, as Judas.
May the mercy and the loyalty of this Lord who
called us keep us always in his service, so that
one day we will be able to share those twelve
thrones, enjoy a hundredfold here on earth, and
the eternal life he has prepared for us.
“And when I go and prepare a place for
you, I will come again and will take you to
myself, that where I am you may be also.” So be
it!
This
article is adapted from the book, From
Egghead to Birdhood (hatch or rot as a
Christian), (c) copyright 2001 Carlos
Mantica.
Carlos
Mantica is a founder of The City of God
community (La Cuidad de Dios) in Managua,
Nicaragua, and a founding leader of the Sword
of the Spirit. He served as
president of the Sword of the Spirit
between 1991 and 1995.
|
