I. THE CHOICE OF APOSTLES

In the fourth chapter of St. Matthew we read thus:—“And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straight-way left their nets, and followed him. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.”

Now let us compare this with the fifth chapter of St. Luke. “And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their net brake; And they beckoned to their partners which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.”

The narrative of St. Luke may be reckoned the supplement to that of St. Matthew; for that both relate to the same event I think indisputable. In both we are told of the circumstances under which Andrew, Peter, James, and John, became the decided followers of Christ; in both they are called to attend Him in the same terms, and those remarkable and technical terms; in both the scene is the same, the grouping of the parties the same, and the obedience to the summons the same. By comparing the two Evangelists, the history may be thus completed:—Jesus teaches the people out of Peter’s boat, to avoid the press; the boat of Zebedee and his sons, meanwhile, standing by the lake a little further on. The sermon ended, Jesus orders Peter to thrust out, and the miraculous drought of fishes ensues. Peter’s boat not sufficing for the fish, he beckons to his partners, Zebedee and his companions, who were in the other ship. The vessels are both filled and pulled to the shore; and now Jesus, having convinced Peter and Andrew by his preaching, and the miracle which he had wrought, gives them the call. He then goes on to Zebedee and his sons, who having brought their boat to land were mending their nets, and calls them. Such is the whole transaction, not to be gathered from one, but from both the Evangelists. The circumstance to be remarked, therefore, is this: that of the miracle, St. Matthew says not a single word; nevertheless, he tells us, that Zebedee and his sons were found by our Lord, when He gave them the call, “mending their nets.” How it happened that the nets wanted mending he does not think it needful to state, nor should we have thought it needful to inquire, but it is impossible not to observe, that it perfectly harmonises with the incident mentioned by St. Luke, that in the miraculous draught of fishes the nets brake. This coincidence, slight as it is, seems to me to bear upon the truth of the miracle itself. For the “mending of the nets,” asserted by one Evangelist, gives probability to the “breaking of the nets,” mentioned by the other—the breaking of the nets gives probability to the large draught of fishes—the large draught of fishes gives probability to the miracle. I do not mean that the coincidence proves the miracle, but that it marks an attention to truth in the Evangelists; for it surely would be an extravagant refinement to suppose, that St. Matthew designedly lets fall the fact of the mending of the nets, whilst he suppresses the miracle, in order to confirm the credit of St. Luke, who, in relating the miracle, says, that through it the nets brake.

Besides, though St. Matthew does not record the miraculous draught, yet the readiness of the several disciples on this occasion to follow Jesus (a thing which he does record), agrees, no less than the mending of the nets, with that extraordinary event; for what more natural than that men should leave all for a master whose powers were so commanding?

Footnote:
[The identity of the event here recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke is questioned, and upon the following grounds:

1. In St. Matthew, “Jesus walks by the sea of Galilee.” In St. Luke, “the people press upon him to hear the word as he stood by the lake.” The quiet walk has nothing in common with the press of the multitude. But how do we know that the walk was a quiet one? It is not, indeed, asserted that it was otherwise, but the omission of a fact is not the negation of it. Nobody would suppose, from St. John’s account of the crucifixion, that nature was otherwise than perfectly still; yet there was an earthquake, and rending of rocks, and darkness over all the land.

2. In St. Matthew, “Jesus saw two brethren, Simon and Andrew,” and addressed them both, “Follow me.” In St. Mark (1:17, who certainly describes the same incident as St. Matthew), he says, “Come ye.” In St. Luke, Simon only is named; and “Launch out,” is in the singular. But though Simon alone is named, it is evident that there was some other person with him in the boat; for no sooner is it needful to let down the nets (an operation which probably required more than one pair of hands) than the number becomes plural. Who the coadjutor was, is not hinted at; but it strikes me that there is a coincidence, and not an idle one, between the intimation of St. Luke, that though Simon only is named, he was nevertheless not alone in the boat, and the direct assertion of St. Matthew and St. Mark, that Andrew was with him; indeed the plural is used in all the remainder of St. Luke’s narrative—“they inclosed”—“they beckoned”—not meaning Jesus and Simon, but Simon and some one with him, as is manifest from Jesus himself saying, “Let ye down the nets,” for so the translation ought to have run. And though it is true that in St. Luke the call is expressly directed to Simon alone, “thou shalt catch men,” it was evidently considered to apply to others; for “they forsook all and followed him;” amongst whom Andrew might well be included.

3. In St. Matthew, Simon and Andrew receive one call, James and John another. In St. Luke one call serves for all. But where the two calls were to the same effect, and so nearly at the same time, I do not think it inconsistent with the nature of the rapid memoranda of an Evangelist to combine them into one, any more than that the cure of the two blind men near Jericho of St. Matthew, should be comprised in the cure of one by St. Mark; for the identity of these miracles, in spite of some trifling differences, I cannot doubt.

4. In St. Matthew, James and John are leisurely mending their nets. In St. Luke, they are busily engaged in helping Simon. But to draw a contradiction from this, it is necessary to show first of all, that St. Matthew and St. Luke both speak to the same instant of time. The mending of the nets does not imply that they had not been helping Simon, nor does the helping Simon imply that they would not presently mend their nets.

5. It is further objected that, if the mending of the nets of St. Matthew was subsequent to the breaking of the nets of St. Luke, or the miraculous draught, Simon and Andrew casting their nets into the sea was also subsequent to it, for that v. 18 and v. 21 (Matt. 4.) relate to events all but simultaneous. It may be so, for my impression is, that when Simon and Andrew cast their net into the sea, it was for the purpose of washing the net after the fishing was over, and not of fishing: ballontaV amfiblhstron is the expression, and perhaps plunging the net would be the better translation; and I feel confirmed in this by the fact that, whatever the operation was, it was done close to shore, if not on shore, whilst Jesus was talking to them on the land. Whereas, for fishing, it was necessary to move out to sea: “Launch out into the deep, ” says our Lord when he wants them to let down their nets for a draught.

6. It is said, that according to St. Luke, Simon’s net brake, and that, therefore, Simon and his companion were the persons to mend it; whereas, according to St. Matthew, Zebedee and his sons were the parties employed. But they were all partners, and therefore the property was, probably, common property; and that as the “hired servants” were with Zebedee and his sons, it is not unlikely, but the contrary, that the labour of mending the nets would devolve upon them (Mark 1:20).

7. The last objection which remains is, that a comparison of St. Mark, 1:23–39, with St. Luke iv, 31–44, shows the call in St. Mark (which is certainly that of St, Matthew) to have been prior to the call in St. Luke. So it does, if St. Luke observes strictly the order of events in his narrative; but I see no sufficient reason for believing that what is related in ch. 4:31–44, happened before what is related in ch. 5:1–11. In the former passage St. Luke tells us that “Jesus came down to Capernaum, and taught them on the Sabbath-days, ” and he then goes on to mention some Sabbath-day occurrences, concluding the whole, “and he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.” This had carried him too much in medias res, and therefore in ch. 5. he brings up some of the work-day events, which a wish to pursue his former subject without interruption had led him to withhold for awhile, though of prior date. And only let us observe how clumsily the narrative would proceed upon any other supposition—Jesus calls Andrew and Peter, James and John, as he was walking by the sea-side—then he goes to Capernaum—heals Peter’s wife’s mother, performs other cures, and retires to a solitary place (Mark 1:16–36). Then, supposing St. Luke here to take up the parable (ch. 4:42), he goes again to the sea-side, and again calls Peter, James, and John; which would surely be one call too much.

I doubt not, therefore, the identity of the events described.] .