'The pathways of Thy land are little changed

Since Thou wast there: The busy world through other ways has ranged

And left these bare.

The rocky path still climbs the glowing steep

Of Olivet: Though rains of two millenniums wear it deep

Men tread it yet.

Still to the gardens o'er the brook it leads

Quiet and low: Before his sheep, the shepherd on it treads,

His voice they know.

The wild fig throws broad shadows o'er it still

As once o'er Thee; Peasants go home at evening up the hill

To Bethany.'

Author of the 'Three Wakings', from 'Lyra Angelicana'.


THE general ground-plan of Jerusalem is probably fairly well known to all readers of Biblical history. Facing southwards, the city terminates on the crest of an extended hill, bounded on the west and south and east by valleys, and therefore having a prominent position from almost every point of view, but especially from the south.

This crest is cut irregularly into two by a central valley (the Tyropoean). On the eastern side of this is Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood. On the western side Mount Zion, the site of the palace of David.

This mountain crest or ridge is of no mean height, and before the repeated destruction of the city (which has considerably altered its environment) the picture it presented was prominent and striking. It and the Mount of Olives, which is somewhat higher, are two of the highest points in Palestine, and attain an elevation of some 2,528 feet above the level of the sea. Ages before the coming of our Lord, long before anything had been built here, we are told that Abraham coining towards it 'lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off' (Gen. 22:2-4).

On the summit of this mountain crest the Holy City was afterwards built, and crowning the special heights of Zion and of Moriah in the time of our Lord would be the palace of King Herod and the Temple.

Sheer down from the Temple heights the rock fell like a solid wall to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and in the time of our Lord, when this was untouched, anyone journeying from the south or south-east towards Jerusalem would see before him the wide moat of the valley, then the bold and rugged face of the mountain wall, and then, high above this, on the left, the mass of towers and columns marking the regal and public buildings on the Hill of Zion; and on the right the massive wall of the Temple platform crowning the summit of Mount Moriah; while yet again above this he would see the upper part of the Temple itself 'covered with beaten gold'.

Jerusalem was a fortified city, and its walls were literally studded with towers of solid masonry. Ninety of these were in the first wall, fourteen in the second, and sixty in the third: one hundred and sixty-four in all. Four of these - named respectively Psephina, Hippicus, Phasaelis and Mariamne - were really magnificent. All were built of solid blocks of white marble. Mariamne was about 77 feet high; Psephina, an octagonal tower, was 122 feet; Hippicus, a square tower, 140 feet; and Phasaelis, more richly ornamented than the rest, formed a stately palace with battlements and pinnacles rising to a height of 167 feet.

Within these towers, on Mount Zion, stood the palace of the kings, of the most extraordinary size and splendour. The pavements were of rare marble, the chambers countless and adorned with all kinds of figures.

Between the buildings of the palace enclosure one might catch glimpses of numerous open squares of beautiful greenness carefully kept, surrounded by cloisters with columns of various orders. Around were groves and avenues with fountains and bronze statues pouring out water.

Such are the descriptions which have come down to us from those who were present at the destruction of Jerusalem. This occurred only between thirty and forty years after the crucifixion of our Lord, and there is therefore not much likelihood of any great difference between this description and the actual condition during the earthly lifetime of our Saviour.

The wall of the city went round the Temple enclosure on Mount Moriah, and at the north-west corner of this was a massive fortress or citadel built by Herod and called 'Antonia'.

This had every convenience of a palace or small city in itself: spacious walls, courts and baths. It appeared like a vast square tower with four other towers, one at each comer: three of these were between 80 and 90 feet in height; that at the comer next to the Temple was above 120 feet.


The Temple enclosure itself occupied a space of about one furlong square— that is, one-eighth of a mile - on every side.

From this extensive platform there rose a series of marble terraces or esplanades, surrounded by cloisters. The first was the Court of the Gentiles, then came the Court of the Women, and then the Court of the Men of Israel. Finally, on the topmost of the marble platforms, as on an elevated stage, visible from every side except the west, there was the Altar of Burnt Offering and the Temple itself.

“IT’s appearance had everything that could strike the mind and astonish the sight.”

“Where it was not decorated with plates of gold, it was extremely white and glistening.”

“At a distance the whole Temple looked literally like ‘a mount of snow,’ fretted with golden pinnacles".

These descriptive sentences, all taken directly from authorized sources, will help to convey some idea of the wonder and magnificence of the structure which crowned the summit of Moriah, and which called forth the enthusiasm not only of the Hebrews themselves, but of all who saw it.

When the sun rose upon it over the Mount of Olives and touched the golden pinnacles and gates with living light, no eye could bear the dazzling radiance, and Josephus tells us that 'the head was involuntarily lowered' - as if in the immediate presence of the God of Israel.

Never before or since, in all the history of the world perhaps, did such splendid associations and site and architecture meet. Here had been the place where Abraham made ready to offer Isaac upon the altar; here had been the site of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, where the destroying angel stayed his hand and King David offered sacrifice; here was the site of the Temple of Solomon, which had been filled with the visible presence of the Lord of Hosts; and, although times of desolation had intervened, here again, in far greater beauty and splendour, was the wonderful creation of the master-builder Herod - a second Temple, surpassing anything that the world had hitherto dreamed of.




It was, then, to this Jerusalem - gorgeous with the palace of the kings upon Mount Zion - sublime and awful in its claims to Divine enshrining on Moriah - that Jesus came.

Of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, before Him, on the one hand, was the magnificent palace and symbol of sovereignty which was, I suppose, indubitably His by right of human inheritance - at all events, we know of no other so directly in the line of succession from King David. On the other hand, there was His Father's House, hallowed by innumerable traditions - hallowed, too, by the holy lives and service of men and women who had worshipped therein, but unhallowed by sins of greed and hate, and even murder, which had been committed within the Temple precincts.

What a wonderful picture do we see of the King of the Jews, who came to His Kingdom - both spiritual and temporal - at Jerusalem!

He came to His own on Mount Moriah, to that beautiful Temple - where by a striking and perhaps purposed coincidence the Holy of Holies was empty: waiting for the Word made Flesh to replace the word engraven on stone - and 'His own received Him not'.

On the other hand, it may almost be said that His own earthly inheritance came to Him and asked for His possession. Archelaus had been deposed and banished to Vienne (in Gaul), and though a Roman governor had been appointed, anyone who had the affections and the will of the people in his keeping might perhaps have been acknowledged by Rome. The band of Galilean disciples who were His devoted adherents were ready at His slightest word to do His bidding; the people themselves came in force to make Him their King. His own earthly kingdom offered itself to Him - 'came to Him' - and more or less distinctly, of His free choice and purpose, He refused it.


So, except for the triumphal procession through the Golden Gate before His crucifixion, there was no public entrance into and acceptance of this earthly sovereignty. His Kingdom was not of this world, and it was rather to His Church of the 'Twelve' and of the Seventy, of the scattered adherents in various places and of the holy women who followed Him, that Christ revealed Himself.

Some of these came with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem; notably, James and John and their mother Salome. With them and in their company came the blessed Virgin, Cleopas, Mary the wife of Cleopas, their sons, Mary Magdalene and Joanna. Peter also, and indeed all of the twelve Apostles, appear to have been of the final company which gathered round our Saviour at the close of His earthly ministry. So that there were many associations and memories which bound together the old Capernaum life with the later life in Jerusalem. This 'later life', as depicted for us in the Gospels, shows us the same inner circle of relations and friends surrounding and attending the person of the Saviour, but, fully admitted into the closest fellowship with them, we find the residents of Bethany: Martha, 'the hostess of the Lord'; Lazarus, her brother; and Simon, their traditional kinsman, all of whom delighted to entertain the Saviour and His disciples. 


And the chief connecting link between these disciples of Bethany and those of Galilee appears to have been St. Mary Magdalene.

For, according to a very old tradition (accepted by such writers and fathers of the Church as Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, the Venerable Bede, Rabanus, St. Odo, St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas), St. Mary Magdalene was none other than St. Mary of Bethany.

If we turn to the first account of the Bethany family in the Gospel of St. John, at the beginning of the 11th chapter, we read as follows:

'Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)'

'It was that Mary which anointed the Lord.' This phrase is evidently used by the Apostle to make it clear to his readers the personality of the Mary of whom he is writing.

Now, the only anointing of our Lord which had taken place at this time was that which we read of in the 7th chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, when (21s we are told) 'a woman of the city, which was a sinner….brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at Jesus's feet behind Him weeping, and began to wash His feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hair of her head, and kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment'.

This seems to have taken place in Galilee, at one of the lakeside cities - possibly Capernaum or Magdala - at the house of Simon the Pharisee; and although no name is given throughout the narrative of St. Luke, the woman of the anointing has always been identified with Mary Magdalene, who (as we read in the very next chapter) from this time followed our Lord and ministered to Him.

So firmly held throughout all the ages has been this traditional ascription, that our own translators who divided the Bible into chapters and texts have not hesitated to use the name of Mary Magdalene in the table of contents, as we see it in many of our Bibles of today.

'It was that Mary which anointed the Lord.' Then Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene) and Mary of Bethany must apparently have been one and the same - 'Mary of Bethany' - in the house of her childhood, the home of her father and mother and sister and brother; 'Mary of Magdala' in the house of her sin, when found and healed by the love of Jesus and finally restored by Him to her kindred at Bethany.

The acceptance of this interpretation and tradition (strangely repugnant as it is to many English minds) is by no means essential to the following of the after-life of St. Mary Magdalene as pictured for us in tradition, but it undoubtedly has a material bearing on this, and appears to throw considerable light on several subsidiary points in the Gospel narrative which are otherwise obscure.

The house of Mary and her sister Martha (Mary is mentioned first, as earliest and best known of all the three); The greater knowledge and love possessed by Mary; The passing impatience of Martha that her sister (who had sinned) should be preferred before her; The utter disappearance of Mary of Bethany (if she were not Mary Magdalene) both at the crucifixion and burial of our Lord - all this and more, impossible to quite understand without this explanation, becomes clear and intelligible.

The very terms used by the writers of the Gospels almost forbid any other solution. To the very earliest Christians - the disciples of the Gospels - there are only three Marys known: Mary, the mother of our Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleopas; and Mary Magdalene. Later on we read of another Mary, the mother of St. Mark, but this was after the ascension.

Consequently, when St. Matthew writes of the burial and the resurrection, knowing that St. Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been taken home by St. John and could not have been present at these later scenes, he repeatedly speaks of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, meaning Mary, the wife of Cleopas. If there had been any possibility of yet another Mary, especially one so loving and beloved as Mary of Bethany, it is scarcely believable either that she could have been absent or that St. Matthew could have used this language.

Of course, there was another anointing - the final anointing of our Saviour - indubitably done by Mary at Bethany shortly before the betrayal and crucifixion. This, which by the hand of any other than hers who was Mary of Magdala, as well as Mary of Bethany, would have seemed a feeble copy of the first anointing, derives fresh beauty when we recognize that it was the same loving heart that once, in deepest penitence, had come falteringly, with the alabaster box of ointment, to the feet of Jesus, that now, three years later, assured of forgiveness, re-anoints her Saviour and Messiah with the costly spikenard. No longer weeping, not daring to draw near, but with a rapt and holy confidence, she now not only bathes the feet of her Master in remembrance of her first anointing, but coming nearer pours the costly perfume on His head.


So among the friends of Jesus, 'Mary of Magdala', 'Mary of Bethany', 'St. Mary Magdalene' and her intimate associates, Mary, the wife of Cleopas, Salome and Joanna, appear to have had a special pre-eminence, not only on account of their love and devotion throughout the whole of the Saviour's ministry, but also because they alone of all the disciples (save the Blessed Virgin and St. John) appear to have been absolutely faithful in the darkest days of suffering and of agony.

And Bethany, near Jerusalem, the house of Martha and her brother Lazarus and of Mary Magdalene, their sister who had come back to them, naturally became the home of Jesus when He visited Jerusalem. We know that the Saviour and His Apostles stayed here, walking backwards and forwards from Jerusalem, and the tireless feet of thousands of loving pilgrims have ever since been treading in their footsteps and searching for some traces of their presence.

The situation remains much the same-here is the pathway, there the hill; but the surroundings have altered sadly. Where formerly there was cultivation and beauty there is now desolation and decay, and this seems to be increasing.


But when Jerusalem was in its glory, and the village on the slope of Olivet was nestling in the shade of palm-trees and surrounded by olive, almond and pomegranate-trees (as described by some of the oldest travellers), it is easy to understand the restfulness, quiet and beauty of this cool retreat within two miles of the city.


Let me guide you, as we follow the footsteps of our Lord along (to Him) the well-remembered journey. We walk along the 'Dolorous Way' through which our Saviour passed (but in the opposite direction) to His awful crucifixion, then under the 'Ecce Homo' arch, which is supposed to be part of the fortress or citadel of 'Antonia' still standing, and to mark the place where Pilate brought forth our Lord wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, and said to the people, 'Behold the Man!' (St. John 19: 5).

This fortress of Antonia, which contained the Judgment Hall of Pilate, was at the north-west corner of the Temple enclosure. Almost by the side of this northern wall we pass to the eastern boundary of the city and out by the gate of St. Stephen to the country beyond.

Just outside the gate is the brook Kedron, now generally empty, and almost directly in front of us is the Mount of Olives. A little on our right is the Garden of Gethsemane.

Leaving this behind us, we bear directly eastward for a mile and a half or so over the mountain, for Bethany lies on the farther slope.

At the highest point of the ascent we naturally wait and turn for a moment to note the wonderful view of Jerusalem, and especially of the Temple, from the Mount of Olives.

On higher ground than Mount Moriah, we look down on the Temple precincts. In the clear Eastern air everything is plainly visible; even individual figures stand out sharply defined and prominent as in a picture. Here, at the offering of the evening sacrifice, the officiating priests, the surrounding worshippers, the Altar of Burnt Offering, the smoke of the sacrifice and even the victim itself - all would be plainly visible, and the low and plaintive chant of the Levites singing the psalms of the day would be heard more or less distinctly when the wind was in the west.

How often, I suppose, did the pious wayfarer pause at such a time as this and, prostrating himself on the grass by the roadside, join his supplications with those of the daily service:

'Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be always acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my Redeemer.'

Over the brow of the mountain we soon come within sight of the village of Bethany. It lies in a little hollow of the hills. The palm-trees are gone, but the surrounding pasturage is green and good, and together with the tender grey of the foliage of the olive-trees forms a delicate setting for all we try to recall. The quiet house, the two sisters waiting for our Lord, the restored Lazarus who has become the unceasing wonder not only of his hamlet but of the adjoining city, the open tomb in which he had been buried, and the house of Simon, the rich man who had been a leper, and who, after his healing, made the latest happy feast we have recorded in honour of his deliverer and Lord.



All this we remember as we look at Bethany, for all these things are pictured for us in the Gospels. Much beyond this may be left to our imagination. Mary Magdalene already knew most, if not all, of the Apostles, and Salome (the mother of James and John) and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, were now her dearest friends and would frequently be found at Bethany. Joanna, too, who followed Jesus from the beginning with Mary (St. Luke 8:2, 3), would naturally stay at Bethany when coming to Jerusalem, and as a matter of fact we find her accompanying Mary to the tomb of Jesus when the angels appeared to them and told them of His resurrection (St. Luke 24).


Bethany was the earliest as well as the latest home of the Master at Jerusalem, and it was probably here that Nicodemus came by night to hold the converse with our Saviour recorded in the Gospel of St. John.

In fact, all through the latter part of the three years ministry we may reasonably regard Bethany as a centre of early Christian discipleship and conference such as cannot be found anywhere else since the old days at Capernaum.

Lazarus, we know, had numbers of friends, and it was from Bethany along the lower road and through the Golden Gate of the Temple (now closed) that the palm procession passed when the people 'strawed' their garments in the way and shouted, 'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest!'

How marked a centre was Bethany, and what hospitality the little town could furnish when necessity arose, we can gather from the Gospel of St. Mark, who tells us that after the triumphant entry into Jerusalem Jesus and all the twelve Apostles returned to Bethany in the evening and rested here until the morrow. From this it would almost seem that after the raising of Lazarus the whole of the village had become followers of Jesus, and ready to welcome and to honour all who were especially His disciples.

Very different from this was the attitude of the inhabitants of the neighbouring city. Here the Jews appear to have been under the influence of the chief priests and Sanhedrin, and no one dared openly to profess his adherence to the teaching and person of the new Master and Leader, who had claimed to be the Messiah. The only one we are told of who thoroughly did this - the man who was born blind (St. John 9)— was cast out of the Temple, and probably had to claim protection of the Romans. Henceforth, according to tradition, he was known as Restitutus, and lost all place and recognition as a Jew.


Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had residences in Jerusalem, and had both come under the influence of Jesus. They knew Him to be good. In their hearts they were ready to acknowledge Him, but it was only secretly and little by little that they dared to show any real appreciation of Himself, His mission, or His followers.

Nicodemus, as one of the Sanhedrin, had once - as we know - the boldness to speak openly in the Council in favour of our Lord, but his words fell on unsympathetic ears, and only provoked a rude reply. It was not until after the crucifixion that both he and St. Joseph finally cast aside all further concealment and lavished at His grave the honour and hospitality which apparently they had not courage enough to offer during His earthly lifetime. St. Joseph begged the body of our Lord from Pilate. Nicodemus brought a hundred pounds of spices, and together they wound the body of Jesus with linen cloths and spices and laid it in the sepulchre belonging to St. Joseph.

In the history of this we seem to gather traces of the beginning of some friendship between St. Joseph and the Bethany family, for Mary was allowed to follow and to see ‘where Jesus was laid’.


But even in Jerusalem itself there was one house which can be identified as having afforded shelter to our Lord and His disciples. This was the house of the 'upper chamber' and the Last Supper, and appears to have been visited by Christ both before and after the crucifixion. In it He not only ate the Passover with His disciples and instituted the Eucharistic feast, but later, after His Passion, it was in this house where the disciples were assembled when 'the doors were shut for fear of the Jews' that Jesus came and stood in the midst saying, 'Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.'

This house of the Last Supper and of the great Commission is said to have belonged to the father and mother of St. Mark, and Barnabas his uncle (Col. 5:10), probably resided with them when he was in Jerusalem. After the crucifixion and ascension it became the general gathering place of the disciples. All waited here in prayer until the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and it was probably in its courtyard or outside it that St. Peter preached his Pentecostal sermon. We are told that it was situated on Mount Zion, and Epiphanius records that it escaped the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and that it was afterwards changed into a church. Strange as it may seem, it is said to be “the one spot in all Jerusalem of unquestioned identity. Besides being described by Epiphanius, it is spoken of by St. Cyril and St. Jerome, and it has been kept in reverent memory ever since” (Biggs, p. 173).

It was in this house (as we are directly told by St. Luke) that the faithful were assembled when St. Peter was delivered from prison by the angel; and it was probably in the upper chamber here where all assembled for that first Council of the Church when the question of the necessity for circumcision was considered and finally rejected.

From all of this, and especially perhaps from Acts 1:15, we may safely gather that this residence - even for an Eastern house - was unusually large and commodious, and that one of the rooms or halls in it - probably that known as the upper chamber - was capable of accommodating a very considerable number of persons, 'about one hundred and twenty'.


Did this number comprise all the early 'Christians'? I think not. The mission and the labours of the 'Seventy' seem to have been largely forgotten by most modern writers. Before Christ suffered on the cross these had gone forth preaching repentance and the coming of the Messiah, and there is some reason to believe that certain of the 'Seventy' or 'Seventy-two' had already taken distant journeys, and were absent from Jerusalem at the time of the betrayal and crucifixion. In the 'Recognitions of Clement' St. Barnabas, who is said to have been one of the 'Seventy', is reported to have been preaching about this time in the city of Rome itself, and his further labours for the Church, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, are in strict accord with the theory of his previous ministry.

On the east of Jerusalem (as we have seen) lay the village of Bethany; in the centre of the Holy City, on Mount Zion, the house and 'upper room', or church, of the father and mother of St. Mark - called, after the death of his father, 'the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark'.



On the west side of the city, some four miles beyond it, we find (at Emmaus) another residence peculiarly sacred to the 'making of the Saints' - the certain residence of Cleopas and also of St. Luke; for no one but himself could well have been the 'other disciple' described by St. Luke as walking home with Cleopas when the Saviour joined them. With them would necessarily dwell the family of Cleopas, while Salome and her two sons James and John (though evidently staying in Jerusalem or at Bethany on the night of the walk to Emmaus) might very probably share the house with Cleopas and St. Luke. The journey from Jerusalem is thus described by Edersheim:1

We leave the city by the western gate. A rapid progress for about twenty-five minutes and we have reached the edge of the plateau. Other twenty-five or thirty minutes, passing here and there country houses, and we pause to look back on the wide prospect far as Bethlehem. A short quarter of an hour more and we have left the well-paved Roman road, and are heading up a lovely valley. The path gently climbs in a north-westerly direction with the height on which Emmaus stands prominently before us. About equidistant are, on the right, "Lifta", on the left "Kolonieh". The roads from these two, describing almost a semicircle (the one to the north-west, the other to the north-east) meet about a quarter of a mile to the south of Emmaus. Along the course of the stream, which low in the valley is crossed by a bridge, are scented orange and lemon gardens, olive groves, fruit trees, pleasant enclosures, bright dwellings, and on the height lovely Emmaus.”


Both Cleopas and St. Luke were rather old men - St. Luke, with the exception perhaps of St. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the most cultivated and intellectual of all the Christians of that date, by profession a physician, by birth a native of Cyrene, and therefore but little acquainted at first with all that had taken place in Galilee; “he reasoned” with Cleopas, we are told, “of all that had happened”.

Later on he became a special friend and confidant of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who evidently told him secrets of her life which were hidden from the other evangelists. Where this special intimacy was fostered is a matter of conjecture, but there is considerable reason to suppose that the unknown house of St. John to which he took the Blessed Virgin (St. John 19 127) may also have been with Cleopas at Emmaus, for it was probably in this house that St. Luke began to write his Gospel.


There were, of course, others besides those I have referred to, living in or near Jerusalem during our Lord's ministry, who are mentioned in the Gospels, and who were brought into immediate relationship with our Saviour.

If we try to make a list of these, as we did of those who lived in or near the town of Capernaum, it will give us not only a collective grouping of the persons already well known to us, but an oppor-


1 Jesus the Messiah, p. 634.


tunity to add a few accessory names to whom history or tradition ascribes some personal relationship with Jesus. Of these the most interesting are:

Zacchaeus, who lived at Jericho and who had the honour of entertaining our Lord 'the day' that Jesus 'abode at his house'.

The Ruler, who had 'great possessions' and lived at a little distance from Jerusalem, who came to Jesus having 'kept the commandments from his youth up', and of whom it is said that 'Jesus beholding him loved him' (Mark 10:21).

Whether this 'ruler' became afterwards a follower of Jesus, and was the same as the disciple known in tradition by the name of 'Maximin', must necessarily be doubtful, but the word (Greek is given) ‘princeps’, or ‘ruler’ (the designation given him by St. Luke) is suggestive of the later name of Maximin. St. Maximin is called by Rabanus 'chief of the disciples after the apostles'.

Simon, the Cyrenian, who bore the cross of Jesus.

Theophilus, who was the friend of St. Luke, for whom he wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and who has been supposed by some to be the same as Theophilus, the son of Annas.

Ignatius (afterwards Bishop of Antioch), who as a boy is said to have been the child called by our Lord, and 'set in the midst as He was teaching'; and Marcella, the traditional stewardess of Martha and Lazarus.

Most, too, if not all the deacons chosen by the Apostles and named in the sixth chapter of the Acts were probably taken from among those who had 'companied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them', and of these Stephen, the first martyr, and Philip, the evangelist, are especially noticeable as being most active in the preaching of the Gospel.

So the full list would be something like this:

St. Mary, the mother of our Lord. 

The twelve Apostles (with Matthias).

Joseph called Barsabas, the colleague of Matthias in the choice after Judas.








'Seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom', chosen as deacons (Acts 6:5).

Living in the house upon Mount Zion: 

The father of John Mark, who made ready the guest chamber

for the Passover. 

The mother of John Mark, named Mary. 

St. Mark himself. 

Barnabas, his uncle. 

Rhoda, who kept the entrance.

From other houses in the city: 

Joseph of Arimathea. 





The man at the pool of Bethesda. 

Simon the Cyrenean. 

Ignatius the boy (?)

From Bethany: 







From Emmaus: 



Mary (the wife of Cleopas). 


Sarah (the traditional handmaid of Salome).

And from Jericho: 


A very similar number, perhaps, to that of the Capernaum district, but representing only a very small proportion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the towns adjacent. If, however, we think of this handful of disciples as not only following our Saviour through His later ministry, but partaking in some measure of the agony of His Passion and as witnesses of the mysteries of His resurrection and ascension, we shall at once recognize that most of these are in nearer approach to Him and have drunk more deeply of His Spirit than could have been possible in the old Capernaum days; and if, apart from the mother of our Lord, we are bold enough to think of any names as standing out more prominently in this sacred fellowship, will it not be just those of whom we have been chiefly thinking - the family of Salome, the family of Bethany, and the family of Cleopas and St. Luke? They have already suffered for His sake, and linked to them by this fellowship of suffering are Restitutus, the man cast out from the Temple and, in less near approach perhaps, Joseph and Nicodemus. 

Some of the future deacons, too, and notably Stephen and Philip, would probably be of their company. All of these have incurred the displeasure of the Jews, and especially of the highest and most powerful class, the priestly circle of the Sanhedrin. Henceforward, whatever others might do, these would be likely more and more to follow the teaching of Christ, to live as in His presence, to let the older ritual and observances pale and pass before the Eucharistic sacrifice, to be filled with love for all who believed in and honoured their Master, and to find their truest fellowship not among their brethren who had disowned Him, but among those, however despised and rejected, irrespective of class or nationality, whose hearts were filled with love and adoration for the risen Jesus.