Who were the Zealots in the Bible?

Simon Zelotes — also called "Simon the Canaanite." He seems to be a different person from Simon the brother of James. We have no account of him in the Gospel history. He is duly named in the Gospels and in the Acts, and then disappears from the sacred page.

It is generally supposed that, before his call to be an apostle, he belonged to a sect among the Jews called "The Zealots." They were conspicuous for their fierce advocacy of the Mosaic ritual. They looked upon themselves as the successors of Phinehas, who, in zeal for the honour of God, slew Zimri and Cozbi. (Num. 25) In pretending to follow the zeal of the priest of old, they assumed to themselves the right of putting to death a blasphemer, an adulterer, or any notorious offender, without the ordinary formalities of the law. They maintained that God had made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas, and with his seed after him, "because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for Israel." These high sounding claims and pretensions deceived both rulers and people for a time. Besides, their fury and zeal for the law of Moses, and for the deliverance of the people from the Roman yoke, gave them favour in the eyes of all the nation. But, as must ever be the case under similar circumstances, their zeal soon degenerated into all manner of licentiousness and wild extravagance. They became the pests of every class of society.

Under a pretended zeal for the honour of God, they charged whom they would with being guilty of blasphemy or of some other grievous sin, and immediately slew them and seized their property. Josephus tells us that they failed not to accuse some of the "prime nobility," and when they had succeeded in turning everything into confusion, they meantime "fished in the troubled waters." He bewails them as the great plagues of the nation. Attempts were made at different times to suppress the society, but it does not appear that they were ever much reduced until, with the unbelieving nation, they were swept away in the fatal siege.

Simon is frequently styled "Simon the Zealot." and is supposed to have belonged to this troublesome faction. There may have been true and sincere men among them, but good and bad alike passed under the odious name of "Zealots." Nothing is certainly known of the future labours of our apostle. Some say that, after travelling for a while in the East, he turned to the West, and penetrated as far as Britain where he preached, wrought miracles, endured many trials, and at last suffered martyrdom.

145 Luke 6:15. — In "Zealot" we have substitution of a Greek for a Hebrew name. Matt. 10:4 has "Cananaean." The Zealots were the most extreme and violent of the Pharisees (Joseph. "Antiqq.," xviii. 1, 6). The Jewish historian states that they originated in Galilee (cf. note 121).

(11) Simon. He is distinguished from Simon Peter by Matthew and Mark as the Cananean, and by Luke as the Zealot. The first term is the Hebrew (not meaning an inhabitant of Canaan)), and the second the Greek name for a Jewish sect holding violent religious and political views, inimical to the Romans. Nothing else is recorded concerning this apostle specially.

(12) Judas Iscariot. This name is always placed last of all in the lists of the apostles. With one or two exceptions each reference to him is accompanied by a phrase alluding to his betrayal of Jesus. He is said to have been [the son] of Simon (John 6:71; John 12:4; John 13:2, 26). He was not of Galilean origin, like the majority of the apostles, but of Kerioth, a town in the land of Judah (Joshua 15:25), this being implied by "Iscariot."

Simon was called Zelotes (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13), answering to the Hebrew word translated "Cananean," as it should be, not meaning either of Canaan or of Cana, but "zealot," one of that well-known fierce party of Jews.

We get a list of them in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Acts. In each case Peter is first, and Judas last, except where Matthias takes his place. These little undesigned coincidences are very comforting, as showing what we believe so heartily — the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. The names are grouped in three fours; the twelve tribes are divided into four threes. Twelve is a complete number. Four plus three makes seven, the perfect number: and four times three gives us the perfect administrative number. Peter, James, John and Andrew form the first group always, and Peter is always the first, but the other three are not always in the same order. Philip is always the first Of the second four, who are always grouped together; whilst James the son of Alphaeus is always the first of the last four. Simon was not a Canaanite but a Zealot, a member of a sect of the Jews so called. We ought to take notice of these little things. It is only in this list given by Matthew, that Matthew is called the publican. Matthew and Thomas are always put together, but when Matthew writes he puts Thomas first. There are many little things in this Gospel which bring out his humility.

From Jotapata Vespasian and Titus proceeded to destroy other cities, putting all the inhabitants to the sword or selling them as slaves. But we will relate only the destruction of Jerusalem.

Palestine had had many robbers, such as would now be called banditti. As the country was being laid waste by the Romans, these took shelter in Jerusalem, and at length formed a strong party and were called Zealots. They murdered some of the citizens, until at length these arose to defend themselves against the Zealots. The Zealots then took shelter in the temple, and secretly invited the Idumeans to come to their relief, declaring that the inhabitants wanted to give Jerusalem up to the Romans. The Idumeans had been incorporated with the Jews, and like the Arabs, were ever ready to rush to war where-ever there was a need for it. They armed at once and appeared before Jerusalem. But the city authorities refused them admittance and tried to reason with them to induce them to return. Night came on, leaving the Idumeans encamped outside the walls. In the night a dreadful storm of rain and wind with thunder and lightning took place. The Zealots, finding the guards had neglected their posts to escape the storm, stole out of the temple, and with saws cut through the iron bars of the gates and admitted the Idumeans. That night, the whole of the guard who watched the temple were put to death. In the morning 8,500 dead bodies were counted.

The city was now at the mercy of the Zealots, and they, assisted by the Idumeans, killed whom they pleased. Not fewer than 12,000 of the noblest blood in Jerusalem perished in this way. Surely the city was given up by God to the direst calamities! The Roman army was approaching the city, and Jerusalem, instead of making preparations to defend itself, was thus being destroyed by its own children!

Nor was this contest merely one for national independence; it was essentially also a religious war. Jerusalem was not only a political but also a religious capital. In fighting for their country, the Jews fought also for their religion, which, indeed, was almost inseparable from the soil of Palestine, and hence, as they sought, for the name and cause of their God. Were it requisite, proofs could readily be adduced of this. Even after they had been defeated, it was stated by the theological expositors of popular sentiment, that since the day of the destruction of the temple, God had mourned for the fate of His people, and that joy had become a stranger in the celestial mansions. Hence they constantly reckoned all along on the Divine assistance. The Maccabees had in former times, with a mere handful of men, defied the Syrian hosts, and why should not similar success be vouchsafed to them under more advantageous circumstances? And even if it turned out otherwise, surely it could only happen in judgement, and for a season, that their God had left His covenant people, His special favourites, for whose sakes even heaven and earth had been created, and who alone fulfilled the end of their being by glorifying their Maker. Whatever, then, might be their divinely appointed fate, to conquer or to die, the Zealots were ready to meet it in such a cause. These views were indeed intimately connected with the whole of the carnal tendency in their religion to which we have already, and shall by and by more fully advert. To belong outwardly to the chosen race, constituted a person a member of the kingdom of God. The place and the rites of the temple were identical with acceptable worship; outward observances and a mere logical development, became substitutes for spiritual apprehension of the truth, for love and devotedness. Thus as the form was being more and more cultivated, to the neglect of the spirit, it appeared also more and more precious, and its final destruction, by an overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, seemed almost impossible. Nor were the expectations entertained about that time of the sudden appearance of a Messiah, who, long hid, would suddenly come forth to deliver his people from the enemies which threatened them, without their effect on the minds of the people. Though the life and death of the blessed Saviour had too lately taken place for the leaders of the people lightly to risk the safety of the Synagogue, by bringing Messianic views prominently forward, as they did at an after period in the war under Bar-Cochba, in order to inflame the zeal of their followers, such considerations must no doubt have had some influence. At times these hopes seemed about to be realised. More than once did the balance tremble in favour of the Jews — the Roman generals were in imminent danger — the Roman engines destroyed — the Jews successful — the legions panic-struck or dispirited. Yet the sceptre passed finally and irrevocably from Judah, by the same hand which had at first placed it there. Calculating merely the probabilities of the case, we would say that the war was begun at a most favourable time; and that notwithstanding the various mistakes and disadvantages of the Jews, had there not been treason in the Jewish camp, or had there not been factions and bloody revenge amongst themselves, or had their eastern allies made a diversion in their favour, they would have obtained the object of their desires, or at least have had a greater measure of success in their defence. But true it is that 'the history of the world is the judgement of the world' —

Used to designate Simon Zelotes, one of the twelve apostles; this name Κανανίτης, Canaanite, is not the same as that of an inhabitant of Canaan, which in the LXX is Καναναῖος. That respecting Simon occurs in Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18; by the other two Evangelists he is styled 'Zelotes,' and Κανανίτης (in some copies Καναναῖος) is held to be from the Aramaic qana, 'to be zealous:' cf. Num. 25:11, 13.

Simon the Canaanite, or rather Cananite, or Zealot, and therefore called SIMON ZELOTES; one of the twelve apostles, of whom nothing is specially recorded. Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.

The Idumeans however at length awoke to the wickedness of the Zealots. They had been called to prevent Jerusalem from being given up to the Romans; but they found that the report was raised merely to serve the purpose of the Zealots to murder and to rob. They determined to leave the city.

The Zealots however continued their evil work. This state of things became known to the Romans, and the general was advised to make his attack upon them while thus divided. But he judged that if he approached it would make them all unite to oppose him. He thought it better to let them "like wild beasts" devour one another.

John of Gischala was head of the Zealots. Simon, the son of Gioras, was another desperado; he entered Jerusalem and became head of another party. Eleazar, the first to advise the revolt, was leader of a third party. These were all in deadly hatred one against another. Had the Romans delayed their visit to the city, it must surely have perished by its own people.