According to one ancient writer who quotes from tradition, it was Peter who contributed the first sentence--"I believe in God the Father Almighty"; John added--"Maker of heaven and earth"; James--''And in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord"; Andrew-- "Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary"; Philip--''Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified dead and buried"; Thomas--"He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead"; Bartholomew--"He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty"; Matthew--''From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." The other clauses were contributed by James (son of Alpheus), Simon Zelotes, Jude and Matthias. It should be remembered, however, that neither Luke nor any ecclesiastical writer before the fifth century makes mention of an assembly of the apostles to formulate a creed, and the early fathers never claimed that the apostles framed it. Its date and the circumstances of its origin are uncertain.
We know that it has been asserted by some critics that this chapter must have been added by another hand, because the evangelist concluded his work in the previous chapter. This, however, is not accepted by sound scholarship, for the reason that it is not unusual in the New Testament writings and in other good books, for authors to insert supplementary matter, to which class the chapter in question clearly belongs. There is no evidence that John's Gospel was ever known in the early Church without this chapter. John, it is true, refers to himself in the third person; but he did so also in chapter 19:35 in practically the same terms as in 21:24. The best commentators agree as to the genuineness on prima facie evidence.
Some writers think it may have been the common locust or green grasshopper, which, when prepared and dried, tastes somewhat like a shrimp. Many ancient authors mention them as food. Diodorus Siculus refers to a people of Ethiopia, who were called acridophaghi, or locust eaters. Porphryius says that whole armies have been saved from starvation by eating locusts. Aristotle and Aristophanes assert that they were relished by the Greeks, and Layard, the discoverer, found evidence that they were eaten in a preserved state by the Assyrians. Later commentators, however have conjectured that the "locust" mentioned in Mark's Gospel as being the food of John the Baptist, was the carob, the fruit of a tree of the locust family, which is a sort of sweetish bean, in pods, much used by the poorer classes.
He was of the priestly race by both parents, his father, Zacharias, being a priest of the course of Abijah, and Elisabeth a descendant of Aaron. Of the first thirty years of his life, the only history we have is contained in a single verse, Luke 1:80. But it is a reasonable presumption that he received the Jewish ecclesiastical training of that period. He was the chosen forerunner of the Messiah (Luke 1:76). Dwelling alone in the desert region westward of the Dead Sea, he prepared himself for his work by discipline and constant prayer. One of his instructors, Banus (mentioned by Josephus, the Jewish historian), tells how he lived with John in the desert, eating the sparse food and bathing frequently by day and night At last (about A.D. 25) John came forth from his hermit-like seclusion in the wild mountainous tract in Judea lying beyond the desert and the Dead Sea, and took up the work of his real office, preaching repentance and baptism, and attracting great multitudes.
While there is no record to prove it, the presumption is that Herod, in his mind, had already condemned John on political grounds as one whose existence endangered his position and authority, but his awakened conscience and the fear inspired by John's teachings restrained him. He had kept John in the prison of Machaerus nearly a year when the Salome incident occurred, which gave Herodias her opportunity to be revenged upon the Baptist, who had rebuked both her and Herod for their sinful relations. It cannot be asserted that Herod would have executed John had not the king been caught by his pledge to Salome. On the contrary Mark 6:26 tells us that he "was exceeding sorrowful."
The date is somewhat difficult to determine with any degree of reliability. The first Passover of Jesus' ministry is believed to have occurred in A.D. 27. His baptism at John's hands took place immediately before that time. John's imprisonment in the tower of Machaerus in all probability began in A.D. 27 and in the first half of that year, but Herod's unwillingness to put him to death may have delayed the climax until the beginning of A.D. 28. Tradition says he was buried in Samaria.
The statement in the affirmative is made a number of times in the New Testament (See Matt 11:14, 17:10-12; Mark 9:12,13. See also Mal. 4:5.) But some of the ablest commentators hold that we must interpret the connection figuratively, and that there is no reason for believing that this means any more than that he was the new Elijah of his time, a rugged prophet, like Elijah in temperament, habits and speech, unafraid even of kings. He himself said distinctly that he was not Elijah (John 1:21). The sense in which the expression was used is made clear in Luke 1:17: "He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." In the narrative of Elijah's appearance at the transfiguration there is no suggestion that he was John the Baptist, whom all the men present had known and seen, and who had only recently died. One of the things that distinguishes the philosophy of the Bible from that of uninspired teachings is that it never confuses or obscures personal identity. Each soul has a distinct personality, which can never be merged or changed into another.
"Who was the last prophet of the old dispensation?" John the Baptist came as the forerunner of Christ, and so may be considered the last prophet of the old dispensation. Christ said: "All the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Matt 11:13). Otherwise, if you regard him as belonging to an intermediate dispensation, the last would be the prophet called Malachi, the writer of the last book in the Old Testament. It is not certain that Malachi was his name, as the word may be translated, "My messenger."
All of the twelve disciples were Jews. Their number was doubtless fixed upon after the analogy of the twelve tribes. They were mostly Galileans, taken from the common people, and some at least had been disciples oi John the Baptist. (See Matt 12:25; John 1:35; Matt 19:28.)
The records of their end are found in traditions preserved by the early Church. Matthew, was martyred in Ethiopia; Mark in Alexandria, Egypt; Luke was hanged on an olive tree in Greece; John, after many perils, died a natural death in Ephesus; Peter was crucified in Rome, head downwards; James the Great beheaded at Jerusalem; James the Less beaten to death with a fuller's club in the temple grounds; Philip hanged at Hieropolis; Bartholomew flayed alive; Thomas slain with a lance at Coromandel; Jude killed with arrows; Simeon crucified in Persia; Andrew crucified; Matthias stoned and beheaded; Barnabas stoned to death by Jews at Salamis; Paul beheaded at Rome under Nero.
No, he was not that kind of man. In the passage in I Cor. 15:32 he is considering the attitude of an opponent, and is stating such an argument as might be made by one who believed there was no life beyond the grave. In effect he says: "A man who does not believe in immortality might naturally say, in considering such a life as mine, that it is folly. Instead of fighting with beasts as I did at Ephesus, and enduring all kinds of hardship and persecution, it would be better for me if I simply enjoyed the good things of life. Such a man could never be persuaded to become a Christian, if there was no prospect of a future life.
The name of Paul's parents are not given in the Scriptures. The only mention of his blood relations is in Acts 23:16 and Rom. 16:7,11, but whether Andronicus, Junia and Herodion were really relatives or simply friends is an open question.
According to the best authorities the epistles of Paul were written at about the following times:
- Romans ...58 A.D. at Corinth.
- I Corinthians ...57 A.D. at Ephesus.
- II Corinthians ...58 A.D. at Philippi.
- I Thessalonians ..52 A.D. at Corinth.
- II Thessalonians .....52 or 53 A.D. at Corinth.
- Philippians ...61 A.D. at Rome.
- Colossians ...63 A.D. at Rome.
- Ephesians ...63 A.D. at Rome.
- Galatians ...58 A.D. at Corinth.
- Philemon ...63 A.D. at Rome.
- I Timothy ...65 A.D. in Macedonia.
- II Timothy...67 A.D. in Rome.
- Titus ...66 A.D. in Macedonia.
All we know of it, from his own writings, is found in II Cor. 10:10, which indicates that he did not possess the advantage of a distinguished or imposing presence. His stature was somewhat diminutive, his eyesight weak (see Acts 23:5 and Gal. 4:15) nor did he regard his address as impressive. Much of this personal criticism, however, may have been the outcome of the apostle's desire to avoid magnifying himself or his own talents. A fourth century tablet represents him as venerable-looking and dignified, with a high, bald forehead, full-bearded, and with features indicating force of character. One ancient writer says Paul's nose was strongly aquiline. All the early pictures and mosaics, as well as some of the early writers (among them Malalus and Nicephorus) agree in describing the apostle as of short stature, with long face, prominent eyebrows, clear complexion and a winning expression, the whole aspect being that of power and dignity. The oldest known portrait is the Roman panel of the fourth century, already referred to above.
"When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," wrote Paul in Gal. 2:11. In view of this statement of Paul, some have questioned whether we may regard both Paul and Peter as having been acting under inspiration. The question of inspiration is not involved in the incident that took place at Antioch, when Paul rebuked Peter for his inconsistency. It is simply a question of human weakness. While under the influence of certain High Church Jewish-Christians, who came from James, Peter withdrew and separated himself from the Antioch Christians, "fearing them of the circumcision." The result was that Barnabas, and doubtless many others, were affected by his example, which became a scandal in the community. To save the Church from an apostasy, Paul took Peter to task for his conduct and rebuked him openly, as his conduct was an attack on Gospel liberty. The writings of Paul and Peter that have found their way into the New Testa ment Canon are, beyond doubt, inspired, but to say that every word they uttered during their Christian lives was inspired is what we do not believe. Paul and Peter had human weaknesses and limitations, like other men. But when they wrote authoritatively under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, they were kept free from errors and mistakes, and in this way were inspired.
It is made clear in Acts 27 that Paul was familiar with "all the learning of the Greeks." Tarsus, his native city, was a famous seat of learning and philosophical research, and he probably had the advantage of training in its schools. The son of a Pharisee and trained from boyhood to the pursuits of a doctor of Jewish law, he presumably was instructed in the elements of Rabbinical lore, including of course the Jewish Scriptures. These are the inferences of those writers who have studied his life career. This could not apply to the New Testament writings as we now know them, for they were only in the making, and must have been very incomplete; but it is a fair presumption that in his later career, as an apostle, he was not ignorant of such writings as may then have been in existence, dealing with the events of Jesus' life and ministry. There was no New Testament, in the modern meaning of the term, in Paul's day, and could not have been, for obvious reasons.
Paul, at the time of Stephen's martyrdom, was more than a mere spectator; he was an active assistant There is nothing in the Scripture to show that before his miraculous conversion, he had shown or expressed regret at his participation in Stephen's death. On the contrary, he had become, and was, up to the moment when he was stricken down, one of the bitterest and most relentless persecutors of the Christians. (See Acts 26:10,12.) What he may have thought, in his own heart at times, of his share in the tragedy, or what influence it may have had upon him, can only be a matter of surmise. There was nothing to outwardly reveal that he brooded over it or that he repented at all, before his own transformation.
There is no evidence in the New Testament to show that he was ever married, and commentators have held that various passages in which he urges celibacy, show him to have remained single by choice. But this is only an inference. Others take the opposite view, pointing out that at the age of thirty, he was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10); as such he "gave his vote" against the followers of Jesus. Being the youngest of the judges, he was appointed "judicial witness" of the execution of Stephen. According to Maimonides, and the Jerusalem Gemara, it was required of all who were to be made members of that Council that they should be married, and fathers of families, because such were supposed to be more inclined to merciful judgment. (See Life of St. Paul, by Conybeare and Howson, volume 1, chapter 2.)
Paul's introduction by the sacred historian (when he was a witness of Stephen's martyrdom), is supposed to have been about A.D. 36. At that time he was probably between thirty and forty years of age. His conversion took place A.D. 37. He left Damascus A D. 37. First missionary journey undertaken A.D. 44; his second, three years later, and his third, four years after the second.
According to the best available information, the shipwreck occurred in the year 56 A.D., and late in the autumn of that year Paul reached Rome as a prisoner. The length of his stay is uncertain. Acts 28:30 says two years, and the author probably knew. It is probable that Paul was then set at liberty and made another preaching tour, going farther west than before. He was afterwards again seized and taken back to Rome. How long a time elapsed between his second arrival and his execution there no one knows.
He answers this question himself (I Cor. 1:17). He implies that he had something better to do. Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. The value of baptism in the case of the Corinthian converts was that it was a public profession of their faith--it placed them on record. This result would be attained whoever administered the rite, and, therefore, Paul relegated the duty to some other Christian. After he left, the Corinthians began to think there was some special significance about it, and for this Paul reproves them.
There is nothing in the book of Romans to indicate Peter's presence in Rome at any time, but that is merely negative evidence. If he ever visited Rome, it was probably during the last year of his life, although Eusebius in the Chronicon says he visited it in A.D. 42. Jerome also mentions Peter's visit to Rome. Catholic writers assert that he was there for a number of years. There is no evidence of the fact in the New Testament books. It is generally accepted, however, that he was in Rome in his last year when he became a martyr as our Lord predicted (John 21:18,19). Dionysus of Corinth writes that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Italy together. Irenams confirms his presence in Rome. Caius, Origen, Tertullian and others bear similar testimony.
Peter was a man of resolute character, bold and decisive. He was easily the leader of the twelve. Honest-hearted and warmly attached to Christ, he believed himself immovably loyal; yet in the hour of temptation he proved unstable and weak. Jesus knew his heart and warned him against over-confidence in his own loyalty. "I have been praying for thee," he said, "that thy faith fail not." He needed this divine strengthening. His faith had failed once before in a crisis (see Matt. 14:29), and what he needed to confirm him now was the "power from on high" which would come later. The tempter was to sift all the disciples, and Jesus foresaw Peter's weakness, but he was preserved from falling by this special intercession. His case shows, perhaps more completely than any other in the New Testament, the weakness of the natural and the strength of the spiritual man. Even at the moment of his denial of Christ, it needed but a glance from the eye of his Lord to make him instantly repentant. After the enduement with the Holy Ghost, he stood forth as the leader of the apostles, faithful unto death.
It referred to some bodily affliction affecting him individually and physically, but not his work as an apostle. In Gal. 4:13,14 he refers to it as an "infirmity of my flesh"--some form of bodily sickness which had detained him among the Galatians. It was probably something that caused him acute pain, and also some degree of shame, since it "buffeted" him (I Pet. 2:20). There have been many conjectures as to its real character. Some have imagined it to be blasphemous thoughts, and others, remorse for his former life; but the most probable view is mat it was an affliction which caused him physical annoyance, possibly a disorder of the eyes, or some nervous ailment. At all events, we are assured that it was so persistent and recurrent that he speaks of it in terms of apology and mortification.
He was attracted, as the others were, by the preaching of the Baptist or by his own Messianic hopes. It can be imagined, however, that baser motives may have mingled with his faith and zeal. He must have possessed some qualifications, probably plausibility being one, and he may even have excelled the rest of the twelve in business ability. Again, he may have joined the twelve in all sincerity, and yielded to temptation only when he found the handling of the money made him covetous. It was evident that Jesus knew from the beginning what Judas would do (John 6:64). Volumes have been written in the futile effort to explain why Judas was chosen.
Little is known of the life of Judas before his appearance among the apostles. He was probably drawn by the Baptist's preaching, or by his own ambitious hopes of the coming of a Messianic kingdom, in which he might play an important and lucrative part. He seems to have declared himself a disciple of Jesus, as the others did, and as he was entrusted with the finances of the little company, we may judge that he enjoyed a measure of confidence, although this seems to have been undeserved. (See John 12:6.) That Jesus himself knew the heart of Judas from the beginning is made clear from the text. (See also John 6:64-71.) Our Lord knew his inmost thoughts. He knew Judas to be deceitful and treacherous. He knew of his criminal confidences with the priests, which culminated in the betrayal. (See John 18:3-5.) The act of betrayal was not the outcome of a sudden impulse at the Last Supper, but was the closing scene in a long career of deceit and treachery. Judas was probably ambitious, and like several other apostles believed that Jesus would set up an earthly kingdom in which he himself might have an influential part Of his early history before his name appears in the. list of the apostles, nothing is known. The name "Iscariot" is variously explained, some writers holding that he was so called because he belonged to Kerioth in the tribe of Judah.
Several explanations of the apparent discrepancy between Matt. 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18,19 have been offered. The first, with relation to the death of Judas, is that the word translated as "hanged" in Matt. 27:5 is capable of a different interpretation, i.e., death by a sudden spasm of suffocation, which might have been accompanied by a fall before the spasm spent itself. Another suggestion, which has been made by some eminent scholars, is that the work of suicide was but half accomplished when, the halter parting, Judas fell with the result stated in Acts 1:18.
All we know is what the Scripture tells us. It may have been remorse, or chagrin over the failure of his plans, but it could hardly have been repentance. It was suggested by DeQuincey, with some plausibility, that in betraying Christ, he was seeking to precipitate a crisis, out of which he expected to see Christ emerge triumphant He thought Christ would use his miraculous power to save himself, and when in danger of death, would declare himself King, and would set up his kingdom, in which the disciples would hold high office. When he found that Christ intended to submit, he perceived that his scheme to force his hand had failed, and he was overwhelmed by the catastrophe he had precipitated. The suggestion is not sustained by the conception we gain of him in the Gospels, but it is possible to imagine an ambitious and avaricious man acting in that way; if, as is possible, he was impatient with Christ, who had powers so great and yet was so slow to use them to advance his own interests and those of the men who had left all to follow him, he may have tried this scheme. The suggestion, however, is pure conjecture. No one has been able to analyze satisfactorily the character of Judas.
Jesus had said many things to and about His disciples before his deaths which indicated that they were converted men: "Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven," Luke 10:20; "Now ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you," John 15:3; "Ye know him" (the Spirit of truth), "for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." In the last verse he distinguishes them from "the world." The world, he said, cannot receive the Spirit; but the Spirit was already with the disciples, and was to come into their hearts in greater fullness, as he did on the day of Pentecost In the high-priestly prayer Jesus said: "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine;" "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world;" "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word," John 17:9,14,16,6. Although Peter was a converted man, he fell into sin and denied his Master. It is the common experience of justified Christians that, while they do not habitually sin, they slip occasionally into transgression. But after the fullness of the Spirit had been received on the day of Pentecost, Peter and the other apostles stood firm. This also has been the experience of many Christians since the apostles' time, who have found, in a larger blessing, sanctifying and keeping grace. Jacob's experience was the same. Before his blessing at Jabbok, he had met God at Bethel and received the promise: "I will not leave thee" (Gen. 28:15); God had spoken to him again, while he dwelt with Laban (Gen. 31:3-11); the angels of God met him at Mahanaim (Gen. 3:22). But after the experience at Jabbok, or Peniel, he lived to the end of his days a purer, higher spiritual life.
The endowment of the "gift of tongues" was apparently continued to the Christians during the apostolic age. Jesus before his ascension breathed upon his disciples and said. "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Fifty days after the crucifixion, the disciples received special power, when the Holy Ghost came upon them. It was to be a sign--to belong to only a few--the apostles and evangelists--and with this gift they went forth to preach to the nations. Later, Paul wrote that he "spake with tongues more than all." In I Cor. 13, however, we see that "tongues" were already ceasing, as belonging to the past. Many times since then the question has arisen whether the gift of tongues was continued to succeeding generations. The attitude of the early Church, neither to quench nor forbid them (see I Thess. 5:19), yet not to invite or excite them, was a safe one. If they were of God, the fact would make itself apparent; if they were simply hysterical jargon, they would quickly subside. Throughout Church history, there were many spurious instances. Iremeus wrote of some in his time who spoke with tongues, but Eusebius hardly referred to the subject, and Chrysostom mentions it only to discourage what he considered as an ecstatic indulgence of doubtful spiritual profit
Very little is known regarding the domestic relations of the apostles beyond what is disclosed in the Gospels. Matt. 8:15 clearly implies that Peter was married. Bartholomew is said by tradition to have been the bridegroom at the wedding at Cana, and Philip is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria as having had a wife and children. Nothing definite can be asserted concerning the others, although they are generally assumed to have been unmarried.
A small community of Jews in the time of Christ, who led a pastoral life and did not marry. They held their goods and took their meals in common, strictly observed the Sabbath, prayed before sunrise with their faces to the East, bathed daily in cold water, never swore, sacrificed no animals, and believed in immortality without a resurrection of the body.
Gentiles, which means simply "peoples," was a term applied indiscriminately by the Jews to all other nations than themselves. After a time it acquired a hostile meaning, as the Jews gradually drew themselves apart as a "holy nation." The term is used of "Galilee of the Gentiles," where some five nations other than the Jews were represented; the "Court of the Gentiles" outside the Temple area; the "isles of the Gentiles," etc.
The Pharisees were a Jewish sect deriving their name from a word which means "separate" or "distinct" They were disciples of the Jewish sages, who held themselves aloof and claimed to keep rigidly the Mosaic laws of purity. They had many religious observances and believed in a future life of rewards and punishments.
The Sadducees were a sect of free-thinkers, differing greatly from the Pharisees on many points. They rejected the oral law and the prophets and only accepted the Pentateuch, and Josephus says they denied the resurrection from the dead.
The Herodians were a class of Jews in the time of Christ, who were partisans of Herod, either of a political or religious sort, or both. It appears that when the ecclesiastical authorities of Judea held a council against the Saviour, they associated with themselves the Herodians, and sent an embassy to Jesus designing to trap him in his speech. As tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas was the ruler of the province which was Jesus' home, and the Jews doubtless argued that Herod would be pleased if they could convict Jesus of being a rival claimant to the crown. The Pharisees were a Jewish sect who held rigidly aloof from other sects, claimed to be free from every kind of impurity and united to keep the Mosaic laws, to which they gave the closest study. They were frequently denounced by our Saviour for their self-righteousness and their assumption of superior piety. The Sadducees were another sect, originally a religious body, but which had developed into a body of freethinkers. They rejected the oral law and the prophets, but believed in the Pentateuch; they denied the resurrection and they held different views from other Jews on various other important points while claiming to be the most aristocratic and conservative of all the bodies.
Nothing authoritative. He was probably brought up with Jesus and the other children in the Nazareth home. It is believed that he did not become a follower of Christ until after the resurrection. Christ seems to have appeared specially to him, and as Paul mentions the fact (I Cor. 15:7) we may presume it was generally known, though it is not related in any of the Gospels. James was a strict Jew before becom ing a Christian, and was highly esteemed among the Jews for his piety. It looks as though he never quite shook off his Jewish ideas (Gal. 2:12), and his epistle shows that he could not cordially endorse Paul's way of stating the Gospel.
Nowhere in the book of Jonah are we told that the fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale. In Matt 12:40 the word "whale" is used, but the revised version gives "sea monster" in the margin. There is absolute proof that sea monsters large enough to swallow a man have been found in the Mediterranean and other seas.
They were a small remnant of the Sadducees, "the Protestants of Judaism," formed into a sect by Anan-ben-David in the eighth century. They rejected the rabbinical traditions and the Talmud, and accepted the Scriptures alone. The origin of their name is uncertain. Some of the sect exist in the Crimea, Poland and Turkey.
There are no authoritative data on the subject An old tradition, mentioned by Epiphanius, says that Lazarus was thirty years old when restored from death and that he lived thirty years thereafter. Still another tradition declares that he traveled to Southern Europe, accompanied by Mary and Martha, and preached the Gospel in Marseilles.
She is mentioned in Acts 16:15 and was a resident of Thyatira, a city celebrated for its purple dyes. She seems to have been a business woman, engaged in the sale of dyed goods, and she evidently had an extensive establishment, as she was able to accommodate the missionary party. She was a proselyte to the Jewish faith, but became a believer under Paul's ministry.
It is not proved, except inferentially. The Jews, in constructing their genealogical tables, reckoned wholly by males. Some of the best modern authorities, however, observing all the rules followed by the Hebrews in genealogies, have reached the conclusion that in ZorobabeL the lines of Solomon and Nathan unite, and that Joseph and Mary are therefore of the same tribe and family, being both descendants of David in the line of Solomon and that both have in them the blood of Nathan. David's son, Joseph, has descent from Abiud (Matt. 1:13) and Mary from Rhesa (Luke 3:27), sons of Zorobabel. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are parts of one perfect whole; the former bearing the descent of Mary and Joseph from Solomon--the latter the descent of both from Nathan.
Many scholars are of opinion that she was the daughter of the Heli mentioned in Luke 3:23. As the Jews reckoned their genealogy by the male side only, it was customary to set a man's son-in-law down as his son. This would account for Joseph being described by one evangelist as the son of Jacob and by the other as the son of Heli. Apart from that theory there are no data for ascertaining the parentage of Mary.
The Marys spoken of in the New Testament are: Mary the mother of Christ, Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Lazarus, Mary the wife of Oeophas (John 19:25) and Mary the mother of John (Acts 12:12).
They are the descendants of a sect of early Christians, named after Nestorius, a theologian of the fifth century A.D. They claim also to be descended from Abraham, and sometimes call themselves Chaldeans. They are probably the oldest of the Oriental churches. They are found in Persia, in India, East Indies, Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor, and even in Cochin China, the principal settlements, however, being in and near Persia. They believe Christ to be both divine and human--two persons, with only a moral and sympathetic union. They do not believe in any divine humiliation nor any exaltation of humanity in Christ. They acknowledge the supreme authority of the Scriptures and believe they contain all that is essential to salvation. The main body of Nestorians is nominally Christian, but it is a lifeless Christianity. They have no images, but they invoke the Virgin and the saints and are ignorant and superstitious.
Though they are mentioned in Rev. 2:15 it is not positively known, but from the context it would appear that they were people who abused Paul's doctrine of Christian liberty, which they turned into license. It is supposed that Jude 4 refers to them. They appear to have attended the heathen rites and shared in the abominations there practiced. Some suppose them to have been followers of Nicolas of Antioch, but if so, they falsely claimed that he taught such things. It is more probable that the name, if relating to a person at all, has been confused with some other Nicolas.
