The politics among the disciples of Jesus Christ

When Jesus Christ organized the core group that became the foundation of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, he embarked on a political exercise that made him a target of the envy, suspicion, and anger of the conquering Roman Empire and their local conspirators, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and tax collectors. The Zealots loved him because he was an activist like them.

The selection of the 12 was a very delicate political exercise. Two of them came from the two extremes of the political divide at that point in time in Israel and Judah: Matthew was a tax collector aligned with the ruling elite. On the other hand, Simon, later named Peter, was a Zealot, the equivalent of today's human rights activists, including the progressive labor unions and peasant organizations and, perhaps in many ways, the Makabayan Bloc in the House of Representatives. To be a tax collector was to be despised and even hated by the people because they were suspected of corruption and their heavy levies and impositions constituted a hated burden on the poor and rich alike. Simon was an enemy of the ruling class while Matthew was a collaborator with the colonizers. Using a little metaphor, Simon was a guerilla fighter while Matthew was a Makapili informer. In Rizal's “Noli”, Matthew was an ilustrado like Crisostomo Ibarra, while Simon was Elias the filibuster.

There was a not-so-secret maneuvering for power. The two brothers, James and John, aided by their parents, especially the mother, were influence-peddling in asking Jesus to reserve for the brothers important posts, one to the left and the other to the right of Jesus. The father was Zebedee and the mother was Salome. They were all reprimanded by the Lord. That incident was very natural for human beings who are motivated by ambitions, lust for power and positions of prestige. This was told in the Gospel according to Mark (Mark 10:35-45) and also in Matthew 27:55-56. The other disciples were very angry according to the Gospel of Matthew (19:27-30).

Jesus must have found it very difficult to mediate the many factions inside the apostles.

There was also so much jealousy among the other apostles when Jesus was always showing palpable favoritism, when he kept on bringing to his many peregrinations only three seemingly favorite apostles; Peter, James, and John. In today's contemporary political milieu, John the beloved can be compared to Bong Go, the trusted favorite of the president; Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea is like Simon, and Cabinet Secretary Karlo Nograles is James. In many important events in the life and miracles of Jesus, only these three were allowed to witness: like the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2:3), the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead (Luke 8:49-56), and in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-38). This favoritism was suspected as one of the motives why Judas easily gave in to the Pharisees to betray Jesus. We may ask: why was Andrew, the brother of Peter, not in the inner circle when he was the very first to have been called?

It turns out Peter was a weak trustee. He disowned Jesus not once, not twice but thrice. James was also afraid for his own safety, he was nowhere to be found when the going got difficult. Only John was left until Jesus died. It was to him that Mary was entrusted. This question then begs to be asked; if John was indeed the most beloved, why were the keys of heavens entrusted to Peter? That choice was a political statement by Jesus, that the pope is a human being and isn’t really infallible, and that our being sinners doesn’t disqualify us from the positions of leadership.