20. Chapter 20: Education By Personal Association

Chapter 20 Education By Personal Association What does this title suggest to you?

It is a pedagogical truism that we teach more by what we are than by what we say. Such is the influence of personality. We learn by association with persons. All that goes by the name of suggestion and imitation is at work when one person is thrown, in contact with another. The great moral and religious teachers of the race have associated with themselves a group of intimate learners, or disciples, that they might learn not so much the lessons as the way of their teacher, and that so by personal witnesses the blessed truth might be passed on to others and so on to others. So did Confucius, so did Buddha, so did John the Baptist, and so did Jesus. Some of his disciples in turn likewise had associates, as Mark with Peter. Paul, too, had associates in his work—Silas, Barnabas, and others (cf. Acts 13:13).

Jesus attached these learners to himself by “calling” them, once, twice, or even perhaps three times, under different circumstances. Andrew and John had first been disciples of the Baptist, who directed their attention to Jesus as he walked. Then they were called once or twice by the lakeside. The words of the call were few, simple, direct, personal: “Follow me.” In the first intent it was a call to personal association and then to all that might flow from it.

Mark 3:14 makes it plain that the purpose of the call was that they might first be “with him” and then that he might “send them.” Thus the main secret of the training of the twelve was association and its main objective was service.

These twelve chosen ones, perhaps twelve because of the tribes of Israel, were Galilean fishermen, and tax- gatherers, and others. Only Judas was from Judea. They were all innocent of the learning of the rabbinical schools of the time—their occupations show this—but not of the religious customs of the Jews, which were theirs also. Doubtless Jesus regarded them as fresh wineskins, fit receptacles of his own new wine of religious truth. They were not always apt pupils, but their hearts were loyal, except that of Judas at the end, and though the crucifixion was a rude jolt to all their hopes, the resurrection restored their confidence in their Leader. So in the end that which they had seen and heard through personal association—“the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ”—was triumphant in their lives. Someone has defined Christianity as “the contagion of a divine personality.”

There seem to have been several concentric circles of persons about Jesus. In the innermost circle came Peter, James, and John, of whom John seems to have been nearest the heart of Jesus. Then came the others of the twelve. Then perhaps the seventy apostles. Then perhaps the company of the ministering women (Luke 8:2-3). Then the multitudes. Finally the hostile critics. The line of division was the degree of spiritual insight. To each and all Jesus gave himself according to their receptive ability. To all the parables are spoken, to the chosen few the mysteries are explained. Would you say that Jesus individualized his learners? Think carefully of this question. Some of the disciples of Jesus appear to us now as such vague personalities. What do we know of Bartholomew, and James the son of Alphaeus? What finally became of the seventy who had been sent forth?

Some students of the temperaments of the early followers of Jesus have concluded that Peter was nervous, John was sanguine, Philip was phlegmatic, and that each of the disciples not only had a distinct temperament, but was chosen on this account by Jesus, who in doing so revealed his power to recognize and control all types of men. How do these views impress you? Some regard St. Paul as choleric. To make our study of the individualizing of the disciples by Jesus concrete, let us consider the most obvious case, that of his treatment of Peter.

Recall the characteristics of Peter and the way of training him used by Jesus. The records represent Peter as having what William James calls “the precipitate will,” that is, he was impulsive, rash, impetuous, bold, of the motor type. Perhaps his foil in all these respects was Thomas. Peter’s name usually heads the list of the disciples, though he was not the first called. His leadership seemed natural. He was the regular spokesman for the group, not that he had been so delegated. It was Peter who answered for all the decisive question: “Whom say ye that I am?” On the mount of transfiguration he wanted to build material tabernacles for spiritual beings. He alone would prove that the appearance on the water was Jesus by walking out to him. He it was who began to rebuke Jesus for proposing to submit to suffering. He alone of the disciples protested against his feet being washed by Jesus. Most stoutly of all he affirmed he would not deny Jesus. He rashly drew his sword and uselessly cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest in the Garden. Though John outran him to the tomb, Peter was the first to enter. He cast aside his garment and swam ashore to meet his recognized and resurrected Lord. These are some of the things that show the kind of man Peter was.

How did Jesus develop Peter?

He called him to a difficult task—to catch men alive. Such tasks help to tame impetuous natures.

He gave him a new name—in the Hebrew Cephas, in the Greek Peter—signifying what he wanted him to become.

He visited him in his Capernaum home and healed a sick member of his family.

He placed heavy responsibility upon him, giving him “the keys,” making him the group leader.

He allowed him to do an adventurous thing and fail— trying to walk on the water. Not that Peter, being a fisherman and a swimmer, should have felt a panic of fear at beginning to sink.

He rebuked him: “Get thee behind me, Satan,” a rather humiliating address to one who had just been made the keeper of the keys.

He corrected his reliance on physical force: “Put up the sword into the sheath.”

He warned him concerning the denial: “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.” Was this really a warning or a statement of a predestined fact?

Alter the denial Jesus forgave Peter and re-commissioned him. The resurrection angel mentioned Peter especially by name: “Go tell his disciples, and Peter.” The repeated commission given Peter: “Feed my sheep,” “feed my sheep,” “feed my lambs,” bound Peter again in personal loyalty to his Lord. Did this training make Peter rock-like? The tradition is that on suffering crucifixion under persecution, Peter requested that it might be with head down, that he die not as his Lord. Can you similarly suggest the characters of James and John, and how Jesus trained them? For example, what is “Boanerges”? Did John begin by being an apostle of love, as he ended? Can you mention some of the features of the group training that the twelve received? For example, in caring for the physical body? in encouragement? in prayer? in love? Consult Mark 6:31; Mark 5:36; Luke 22:32; John 13:1.

What is the significance of the fact that Jesus would address the disciples at times as “children,” “lads,” “little flock”? (See Mark 2:5; Mark 10:24;Luke 12:32; John 13:33; John 21:5.) What are some differences between a teacher today before his class and Jesus with the twelve? The twelve were dependent on Jesus for their training. Was he also in a measure dependent on them for companionship and strength? See Luke 22:28, and remember the agony in the garden.

Name some respects in which Christianity in its history has exemplified this same reliance on the principle of human association.

It is sometimes said that the Church is in the New Testament, but not the YMCA. Is the principle of the YMCA there?

What further additions would you make to this discussion?