The Twelve

Andrew: Feast Day: November 30

St Andrew was a native of Bethsaida, a town in Galilee, upon the banks of the lake of Genesareth. He was the son of Jonas, or John, a fisherman of that town, and brother to Simon Peter. Later they moved to a house at Capharnaum, where Jesus lodged when he preached in that city. It is no small proof of the piety and good inclinations of St. Andrew, that when St. John Baptist began to preach penance in the desert, he was not content with going to hear him as others did, but became his disciple, passed much of his time in hearing his instructions, and studied punctually to practice all his lessons and copy his example; but he often returned home to his fishing trade. He was with his master when St. John Baptist, seeing Jesus pass by the day after he had been baptized by him, said, "Behold the Lamb of God."[1] Andrew, by the ardour and purity of his desires and his fidelity in every religious practice, deserved to be so far enlightened as to comprehend this mysterious saying, and without delay he and another disciple of the Baptist went after Jesus, who drew them secretly by the invisible bands of his grace, and saw them with the eyes of his spirit before he beheld them with his corporal eyes. Turning back as he walked and seeing them follow him, he said, "What seek ye?" They said they desired to know where he dwelt; and he bade them come and see. There remained but two hours of that day, which they spent with him, and the whole night following.

Andrew, who loved affectionately his brother Simon, called afterwards Peter, could not rest till he had imparted to him the infinite treasure which he had discovered, and introduced him to Christ that he might also know him. Simon had no sooner met Jesus than the Saviour of the world admitted him as a disciple and gave him the name of Peter. The brothers tarried one day with him to hear his divine doctrine, and the next day returned home again. From this time they became Jesus’ disciples, not constantly attending upon him, as they afterwards did, but hearing him frequently, as their business would permit, and returning to their trade and family affairs again. Jesus, in order to prove the truth of his divine doctrine by his works, wrought his first miracle at the marriage at Cana in Galilee, and was pleased that these two brothers should be present at it with his holy mother. Jesus, going up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, stayed some days in Judea, and baptized in the Jordan. Peter and Andrew also baptized by his authority and in his name. Jesus returned to Lower Galilee in autumn, and one day met Peter and Andrew fishing in the lake and called them saying that he would make them fishers of men. They immediately left their nets to follow him, and never went from him again. The year following, the Son of God formed the college of his apostles, in which our two brothers are named by the evangelists at the head of the rest. Not long after Jesus went down to Capharnaum and lodged at the house of Peter and Andrew and, at the request of them both, cured Peter's wife's mother of a fever, by taking her by the hand and rebuking the fever. Later, when Christ would not send away the multitude of five thousand persons who had followed him into the desert till they were refreshed with some food, Philip said two hundred pennyworth of bread would not suffice. But Andrew seemed to express a stronger faith, saying there was a boy who had five barley loaves and two small fishes—which, indeed, were nothing among so many. When Christ was at Bethania, at the house of Lazarus, a little before his Sacred Passion, certain Greeks who came to worship God at the festival, addressed themselves to Philip, begging him to introduce them to Jesus. Philip did not undertake to do it alone; but spoke to Andrew, and they both together spoke to their divine master and Jesus met with the Greeks. This shows the great credit Andrew had with Christ. Christ having foretold the destruction of the temple, Peter, John, James, and Andrew asked him privately when that should come to pass, that they might forewarn their brethren to escape the danger.

Andrew laid down his life for Christ in Achaia. Paul says, that having taken many people in the nets of Christ he confirmed the faith which he had preached by his blood at Patrae. There he was crucified. When the apostle saw his cross at a distance, he is said to have cried out, "Hail, precious cross, that hast been consecrated by the body of my Lord, and adorned with his limbs as with rich jewels. I come to thee exulting and glad: receive me with joy into thy arms. O good cross, that hast received beauty from our Lord's limbs; I have ardently loved thee; long have I desired and sought thee: now thou art found by me, and art made ready for my longing soul; receive me into thy arms, taking me from among men, and present me to my master; that he who redeemed me on thee, may receive me by thee." It is the common opinion that the cross of St. Andrew was in the form of the letter X, styled a cross decussate, composed of two pieces of timber crossing each other obliquely in the middle. That such crosses were sometimes used is certain; yet no clear proofs are produced as to the form of St. Andrew's cross. 1) John 1: 36; 2) 2 Kings 4:43.

Bartholomew: Feast Day August 24

The synoptic gospels and the Acts of the Apostles mention Bartholomew as one of the Twelve, but offer no further information about him except to link his name with that of Philip. The Fourth Gospel, which has no explicit list of the Apostles although it names most of them and speaks frequently of 'the Twelve,' makes no reference to Bartholomew, but mentions an otherwise unknown Nathanael, linked with Philip in his call (John 1:43-51) and closely associated with the other Apostles after the Resurrection (John 21:1-14). Since the sixteenth century many scholars have identified Nathanael with Bartholomew, and have seen in the latter name merely the patronymic or 'surname' by which Nathanael is specified as the son (bar) of Tolmai (or possibly Ptolemy) in the same way as Simon Peter is specified as the son of Jona.

If the identification is accepted, we have more detail about the vocation of our saint than about that of any other Apostle (Luke 5:4-10 seems to be a doublet of John 21:4ff). The scene is not without humor. In his very first words in reply to Philip's invitation to come and recognize the awaited Messiah in the preacher from Nazareth--'What can you expect from Nazareth?'--Nathanael has expressed the universal rivalry between neighboring villages (he is from Cana, John 21:2) and has set the tone for what was to follow. For there is a smile behind Christ's own words as he greets this 'sincere son of Jacob' who has none of that 'double-dealing' which tradition had connected with the name; and there is guarded caution behind Nathanael's inquiry about the extent of Christ's knowledge of him. When he sees his deepest thoughts being read in Christ's second playful allusion to his kinship with Jacob the dreamer, he is sufficiently overcome to recognize Christ as the Messiah. But the last word goes to Christ as he smilingly promises that this Jacob will see in reality what the other only dreamed of--the coming of heaven to earth. Paradoxically, the messianic 'son of God' whom Nathanael is willing to recognize in this thought-reader is something less than the heavenly 'son of Man' whom Christ will reveal to him.

Later tradition has made the usual attempt to provide the missing details, and from the fourth century on there are conflicting accounts of his missionary activity in Asia Minor, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Persia, India and Egypt. Of these Armenia has the strongest support, and although its earliest writers make no mention of our saint he is honored as the Apostle of that country. A tradition that he was flayed alive lies behind the knife and the skin which have been adopted as his symbols.

James the Greater: Feast Day July 25

Like his brother, John the Evangelist, James occupied a prominent position among the Twelve. Coming second or third to Peter in the official lists, he was also singled out, with Peter and John, to be a privileged witness of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration, and the Agony in the Garden (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33). A fisherman of Bethsaida, of a family, perhaps, of more than ordinary means--his father, Zebedee, could afford hired men (Mark 1:19-20), and his brother was personally known to the High Priest (John 18:15-16)--James shared with John the nickname Boanerges, 'Sons of Thunder.' This title, bestowed by Christ (Mark 3:17), suggests that the brothers were impetuous and hot-tempered, and we may see this exemplified in different ways in the two incidents described in Luke 9:54 and Mark 10:35-41.

James was put to death by the sword at the command of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:2), probably in the year 42. Towards the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria, relying on the information of 'those before him,' states that the apostle's accuser was himself converted, and suffered at the same time as James.

James the Less: Feast Day May 1

The only direct information which the New Testament provides about the second apostle who bore the name James is that he was the 'son of Alphaeus' (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is probably to be identified with the recipient of a vision of the Risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7), and is, doubtless, the same James who is depicted as the leading Christian of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). It seems natural to identify him with the Lord's brother of that name mentioned in the Gospels (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), but it would appear more probable that neither James nor any other of the “brethren of the Lord” was a member of the Twelve. James the Less is also probably not the author of the Epistle of James; rather, if one keeps in mind the pre-eminent position occupied by James, the Lord's brother, among the Jewish converts at Jerusalem, he would appear the most likely author of the Epistle, a letter addressed primarily to the convert Jews of the Dispersion.

Jude: Feast Day October 28

Jude, known as Thaddeus, was the brother of James the Less and a relative of Jesus. He is the author of the Epistle to the Eastern Churches. It is said that he preached the gospel in Palestine. Jude was martyred in the first century, the exact manor of death is not known.

John: December 27

As a very young man, John had listened to John the Baptist, and when the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said 'Behold the Lamb of God' he had transferred his allegiance to our Lord. A few months later, when he and his elder brother James were helping their father with his fishing, Jesus called to them, 'and they, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, turned aside after him' (Mark 1:20). Thereafter these two, with Peter, became the closest and most constant companions of Christ. They alone were with him at the raising of Jairus's daughter, at the Transfiguration and in Gethsemane. After the resurrection they became, along with James son of Alphaeus, the 'pillars of the Church' (Galatians 2:7) in Jerusalem; but after his elder brother had been beheaded by Herod (C. 44 A.D.) John seems to have left Palestine, and it is James the Less who is bishop of Jerusalem at the time of Paul's last visit (c. 57 A.D.). Of John's own movements between then and his exile on the island of Patmos we know nothing. Even the date of that exile is uncertain, depending on whether we take the wicked emperor of the Apocalypse to be Nero or Domitian. But all authorities agree that he spent his later years at Ephesus, acting as patriarch to the churches of Asia; that he died there at a great age, about the end of the century; and that it was only in these later years that he consented, under pressure from his disciples, to commit his Gospel to writing.

Everything that John ever wrote could be contained in quite a small booklet, yet so rich is the vein that one is embarrassed to know how best to sample it in such a brief note as this. Should one concentrate on the famous 'Logos-doctrine'-that Christ was the 'Word' of God, the word by which he created all things and by which he spoke to Moses and the prophets? Or should one discuss John's insistence on Faith-by which he meant not only belief in the divinity of Christ but also an absolute and boundless trust? He certainly abhorred all heretics, especially those who denied the actual, earthly, fleshly reality of God-made-man in this world. Or should one concentrate on John the contemplative, the spiritual father of all Christian monks and nuns? Or on the visionary of the Apocalypse? Or on the poet of the Gospel prologue?

John himself would probably have said that the whole of him is summed up in the single sentence of his first Epistle (I John 4:8), that 'God is love.' It was love which had brought God down to earth in the person of Jesus, and it is only by love-of God and of his fellowmen-that a man can join himself, through Christ, to God. And this union with God-for the body in the Blessed Sacrament, for the mind and will by faith and good works-is the only thing that matters. It is life and light and victory and bliss, here and everywhere, now and forever. But it can all be summed up and bound together by the one word 'love.' Love of God implies faith and trust and obedience. Love of our neighbor implies all that is meant by 'right conduct.' All goodness, all happiness, all wisdom is included in that single word.

'And he who sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. I am Alpha, I am Omega, the beginning of all things and their end; those who are thirsty shall drink--it is my free gift--out of the spring whose water is life. (Revelation 21:5.)

Jesus had promised that water to Nicodemus (John 3:5), to the Samaritan woman (John 4:13) and to all the world (John 7:37), but it is John who most simply and clearly shows us where the well of it is to be found. 'God,' says John, and he was the first to say it, among all the philosophers, prophets and saints of the world, 'God is love,' and only in his love can the thirst of all the world be quenched.

Matthew: Feast Day September 21

Few people love the tax-collector. Even in these days when the relation between taxer and taxed is, no doubt, scrupulously correct, his name strikes cold. Much more was this so in the Palestine of the first century, when it was in his interests to bully and harry and falsify. But even the mild and honest tax-collector was not acceptable to official Judaism: he did business with the gentile and handled his money; he was legally impure, socially outcast. A Jewish Rabbi would be bold indeed to invite him to join his inner circle of disciples: it would be a gesture of defiance to the established prejudice. And so the formula 'publicans and sinners' slipped even into the phrase-book of the evangelists and, quaintly enough, into the Gospel of Matthew the publican. This term 'publican,' by the way, does not accurately describe Matthew's profession but flatters it. The Roman publicanus was a wealthy farmer of State taxes, not a humble collector (portitor). On the other hand, we should not picture Matthew going from door to door. He had his office in Capharnaum, Peter's home town and the headquarters of our Lord's Galilean ministry. The place naturally had its custom house, since it lay on the road that leads from Damascus just where, at the northwest corner of Lake Galilee, that road passed from the territory of Herod Philip to the domains of his brother, Herod Antipas. Not customs only but road-tolls would be calculated and exacted here, according to a vague tariff that would leave a certain lucrative freedom to the customs officer himself. The Pharisees might despise it, but the trade was a profitable one and much sought after: whether it was to be pursued honestly or dishonestly would depend on the character of the officer.

'And as Jesus passed further on, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at work in the customs-house and said to him, "Follow me"; and he rose up and followed him' (Mark 2:14). That this was a call to the apostolate there is no doubt-its terms too closely match those of the call of Simon and Andrew to be otherwise (cf. Mark 1:16ff.). Yet 'Levi' does not appear in any list of the Twelve (Mark 3:16ff.; Matthew 10:3ff.; Luke 6:14ff.; Acts 1 :13). Now the vocation of the tax-collector is reported in the first Gospel too, but there he is called 'Matthew' (Matthew 9:9ff.), thus identifying him with the Matthew who appears in all the apostolic lists. The widely accepted and most natural explanation is that Matthew and Levi are one person with two Semitic names (not unprecedented; cf. e.g. the Machabee brothers in 1 Machabee 2:2-5). It may be that our Lord himself gave him the name Matthew (Mattai, 'gift of God,' in Aramaic) as he gave Kepha to Simon.

This Matthew, then, got up from his registers and henceforth--at our Lord's suggestion--took a lesson from the lilies and the birds who never did a day's calculation in their lives (Matthew 6:25ff.). His master was no longer Antipas, the shrewd 'fox' (Luke 13:32), but one who, unlike the foxes, had not even a home (Matthew 8:20). The change destroyed all Matthew's worldly prospects: Simon and Andrew might return to their fish, waiting for them in the lake, but Matthew had thrown over a coveted business and could never recover it. He left it gladly, it seems, and completely--at least it was not he but Judas who kept the accounts for the apostolic group (John 13: 29).

After his call, Matthew disappears from the New Testament except as a name in the apostolic lists. He next appears some time between the years 40 and 50, when this ex-civil servant produced not the lively and artless Gospel of Mark but the orderly, almost ledger-like, treatise which we know as 'The Gospel according to Matthew.' For if we are to judge from our surviving Greek edition of it, whose substantial identity with its Aramaic original there is no reason to doubt, Matthew's mathematical temperament has reasserted itself with a certain arithmetical neatness. Hence the seven parables of the Kingdom, the seven woes for the Pharisees, seven invocations of the Lord's Prayer, the probable number of seven Beatitudes. So, too, with the number five: five disputes with the Pharisees, the five loaves, five talents and above all the five books into which the body of his Gospel is clearly divided. And then, as we might expect, a sign of special knowledge on the financial side. Thus the 'denarius' of Mark and Luke becomes 'the coin of the tribute'--a customs officer has his own way of looking at these things. So also, though Mark and Luke omit it, we find the incident of the Temple tax in the first Gospel complete with its little technicalities of indirect tax and poll tax, its 'didrachmas' and its 'staler.' And so Matthew's old trade entered a new service: the accountant became an evangelist; the ledger turned into a Gospel. That he preached the gospel to the Jews in Palestine for perhaps fifteen years after the crucifixion is fairly sure (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iii.24.265), but confusion of his name with that of Matthias (Acts 1:26) has left us with a varying tradition: Ethiopia, Parthia, Macedonia are all mentioned and even an apostolate among the cannibals. It is commonly but not unanimously affirmed he died a martyr's death; but we know for certain that he lived a martyr's life-and that is enough.

Matthias: Feast Day May 14

Matthias was a constant attendant on our Lord, from the time Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist to his ascension. In a general assembly of the faithful held soon after the ascension, Peter declared the necessity of choosing a twelfth apostle to replace Judas. Two were unanimously nominated by the assembly, as most worthy of the dignity: Joseph, called Barsabas, and, on account of his extraordinary piety, surnamed the Just, and Matthias. After devout prayer to God, that he would direct them in their choice, they proceeded to select the next disciple by lot, which falling by the divine direction on Matthias, he was accordingly associated with the eleven, and ranked among the apostles.

Matthias received the Holy Ghost with the rest soon after his election; and after the dispersion of the disciples, applied himself with zeal to the functions of his apostleship, in converting nations to the faith.

Peter: Feast Day June 29

Simon Peter, of Bethsaida (on the east bank of the Jordan), was by trade a fisherman. He was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, and later both were called 'to be fishers of men.’ At that date they appear to have shared a house at Capharnaum, and Simon was a married man (possibly a widower?). Among the twelve apostles, Simon, who had been called ‘Peter’ by Jesus, has an eminence which is plainly evidenced not the Acts of the Apostles but in the Gospels, where his name heads the apostolic lists, and he appears as the usual mouthpiece of the Twelve in their interactions with their Master. The church teaches that this leadership has been inherited by the successive bishops of Rome, who are thus endowed with universal jurisdiction and with infallibility in doctrinal definition. In support of this doctrine of the Roman primacy tradition has appealed especially to three Gospel texts:

Matthew 16:17—19. This passage, centrally placed in Matthew, and another in Matthew 18:17, are the only sayings attributed to Jesus in which the word ‘church’ (Greek ecclesia) occurs. Various opinions about Jesus having been mentioned, he has asked the disciples: ‘And what of you? Who do you say that I am?’, and Simon Peter has answered: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ In reply Jesus congratulates Simon on having learned this cardinal truth not by human means (‘flesh and blood’) but by divine revelation. Then, echoing the pattern of Simon’s words, he goes on: ‘(As thou hast said that I am the Christ, the Son of the living God, so) I in my turn tell thee, that thou art Peter...’ The parallelism indicates that, just as ‘Christ’ in Simon’s statement was not a name but a title, so ‘Peter’ here is not just a personal name but a name denoting a function or office, the nature of which is at once made clear: ‘(Thou art Peter) and upon this rock I will build my church.’ The Greek word for ‘Peter’ is Petros (masculine); that for ‘rock’ is petra (feminine). But Jesus will have been speaking in Aramaic, and in Aramaic (as can be seen from St Paul’s epistles) the original of the name ‘Peter’ was Kepha, identical with the Aramaic word for ‘Rock.’ So Jesus in fact said: ‘Thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ Simon then is to have the function of being the firm substructure (not just a foundation-stone, but the rock on which the foundation-stones will rest) of the church which Jesus is going to ‘Build’: ‘. .. upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell’ (i.e. the powers of mortality or evil) ‘will not prevail against it'; Matthew 7:24-27. Thus the church will have a stability superior to the worst assaults, and the source of this stability will be the rock on which it is to be built, Simon Peter, but Simon Peter considered not as a fallible man (Simon) but as endowed with a function (Peter). The next clause of the text (‘and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’) should be compared with Isaiah 22:19—22, whence it appears that, in the earthly anticipation of the post-historic Reign of God, Peter is to have the supreme authority as the temporal representative of the eternal King. Finally Peter is told that his decisions (‘and whatever thou shalt bind on earth etc.’) will have divine sanction. It is sometimes argued that, as the ‘binding and loosing’ promise is also made to all the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, this promise gives nothing peculiar to Peter. But as Peter’s function as rock-foundation and his office as ‘grand vizier’ are himself (a house is not built on several rocks, nor is a kingdom ruled by several viceroys), so too this may be thought to give Peter a unique jurisdiction.

John 21:15-17 (‘...Feed my sheep’). For the metaphor of the flock we may specially refer to a passage from this same Gospel (ch. 10) where the unity of Christ's flock is emphasized: `There shall be one flock and one shepherd,' viz. Christ. From this it seems that in our passage Jesus, now that his visible presence is to cease, is handing over his flock to Peter as his vice-regent. The Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28) and the elders addressed in I Peter 5:2 are also described as shepherds. But if ‘one flock’ requires ‘one shepherd’ there will be need, above the subordinate level of local pastors, of one supreme shepherd of the flock of Christ. It is not enough that Christ in heaven remains the divine pastor of the flock, since if it were enough there would indeed be no need of a supreme vice-pastor, but no need either of such local pastors as those mentioned in Acts and 1 Peter.

Luke 22:32 (‘. . . it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren’). This passage looks like an injunction to Peter to carry out the stabilizing task assigned to him in Matthew 16. We may add (4) that Mark 9:33—37 seems to turn a general warning to all the apostles (cf. the parallel in Matthew 18:1-5) into a special admonition to the ‘first’ (cf. Matthew 10:2) of the Twelve: ‘If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all’ —servant of the servants of God.

After the Ascension Peter’s leadership of the Twelve seems to have been unquestioned. It is he who, before Pentecost, tells the assembled brethren that the place left vacant by Judas’s fall should be filled. He is the spokesman to the crowd gathered at Pentecost. He visits its the saints (i.e. the Christians) everywhere’ and takes the crucial step of admitting the Gentile Cornelius to baptism. When Herod found the Jews pleased by the execution of James, the brother of John, ‘he went further and laid hands on Peter also.’ The author of the Acts relates Peter’s escape from prison, and promptly tells the story of Herod’s fatal illness. At the council of Jerusalem Peter takes Paul’s side in the discussion on circumcision, as also does James, who by now appears to be the head of the local church of Jerusalem and therefore the leader of Jewish Christianity. In the Acts no further mention is made of Peter. But we know from Galatians that Peter visited Antioch (possibly before the Council of Jerusalem), and from 1 Peter we may infer that he visited many churches in Asia Minor. It is just possible that when Paul (Romans 15:22) explains his own delay in visiting Rome by his reluctance to ‘build on the foundation another man had laid’ he is thinking of Peter, who may have visited Corinth (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:12) en route for Rome.

Philip the Apostle: Feast Day May 1

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us nothing of Philip except our Lord's choice of him as an Apostle. John, however, in youth his fellow townsman at Bethsaida, and in old age his neighbor in Asia Minor, tells us more of him. It was he of whom Jesus asked how sufficient bread could be provided to feed the five thousand, and who replied that 'two hundred silver pieces could not buy enough.' The Greeks who wished to see Jesus approached Philip, and, at the Last Supper, it was he who asked to be shown the Father.

Simon: Feast Day October 28

Simon, surnamed the Canaanite and also the Zealot, to distinguish him from Peter and from Simeon, preached in Persia and Babylonia. Simon was martyred in the first century, the exact manor of death is not know, however, it is said he was beheaded and cut in two.

Thomas: Feast Day December 21

The Apostle St Thomas (also called Didymus, 'twin') is the subject of a masterly character sketch in John's Gospel. It is important because he is not unlike many well-meaning people of today who have received a technical education and nothing else, and believe only what they can see and touch. He comes to notice when, against the protests of the frightened disciples, Jesus insists on returning to Judea to raise Lazarus from the dead. Thomas, loyal and pessimistic, enlists the others to go too, 'that we may die with him' (John 11:7-16). Then, at the Last Supper, when Jesus tells his disciples that he is about to leave them and that they know the way where he is going, this same common-sense Thomas, evidently under great strain, cries, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?' Jesus treats him to the sublime answer: 'I am the - way . . . No one goes to the Father save through me.'

The shattering blow of the crucifixion was followed by 'women's tales' of a resurrection. Poor Thomas, who had not died with him after all, was away, perhaps hiding his head in sullen bitterness, when Jesus appeared to the rest. He met their enthusiastic testimony with obstinate disbelief which became neurotically brutal: 'Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger in the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.' A sad, lonely week must have followed for him, with the others so happy. Then he rejoined them in his loyal way, although the doors were still shut for fear of the Jews. Only Jesus could convince him, and he came specially to give him the proof he demanded: 'Bring your finger here and see my hands; and put forth your hand and place it in my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas needed no more and burst into the great cry which is the climax of St John's Gospel and Christianity's age-long confession: 'My Lord and my God.' Peter and Thomas are the first two disciples mentioned as present when Jesus manifested himself at the sea of Galilee. Thomas would not be left out again.

Jesus said to Thomas: 'Have you believed because you have seen? Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.' Here is encouragement to those who receive God's gift of faith with the simplicity of a child. But Jesus never said men should shut their eyes. A strong, early tradition makes him the Apostle of India where he was martyred.

Source: Catholic Information Network