The Year of Public Favor, Part 4: The Twelve Apostles

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is Dean and Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

(Matthew 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16) [1]

Jesus never wrote on paper, William Barclay once observed. He left behind no printed books or pamphlets—or cassette tapes, videos, CDs or DVDs for that matter; instead he chose “certain men on whose hearts and lives he could write His message and who could go out from His presence to carry that message abroad.” [2] Those men were his apostles. This was a profound observation. At the end of his public ministry, Jesus left no monument of his life’s work. Instead of a body of literature or institutions bearing his name, he left behind a small group of men. These men would produce the literature, the institution, and the changed lives that would be his fitting memorial. [3] As Harrison wrote, “From the vantage point of the apostolic age, it is not difficult to see that the most important work of Christ prior to his death and resurrection was the selection and training of the men who would represent him in the world.” [4]

The strategy of Jesus in training his men was one followed later by the great apostle Paul; it is the principle of multiplication. Concentrate on a few, and these shall also train a few who shall in turn teach others (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus followed this practice faithfully during his short time of ministry. In his great “High Priestly Prayer” on the evening of his betrayal he did not pray for the world—even though he had been sent to the world. Instead he prayed for the men the Father had given him (John 17:9). [5]

The men Jesus chose would literally change the course of history. They did so not because of their own creative genius, but because they were his product; “they bore His stamp.” [6] Judged by worldly standards, says Barclay, they had no “special qualifications at all. They were not wealthy; they had no special social position; they had not special education; they were not trained theologians; they were not high-ranking churchmen and ecclesiastics; they were twelve ordinary men.” [7] We would never have “heard of them had not the Master passed their way.” [8] “The apostles were not chosen because they were classic examples of what a Christian should be, because they were first century Christians, or because they were geniuses.” [9] If intellectual genius was a requirement, says Kierkegaard, then “goodnight Christianity.” [10]

They were ordinary men, but it was no ordinary work that Jesus intended them to do. Not only would they preach the good news of the kingdom to the people of Galilee, but they would lay the foundation of the Christian church, and they would be given places of honor in the glorious kingdom of God in the end times.

We may summarize our passage by saying that Jesus selected this group of twelve men for his personal training that he might send them on a special mission. The practical lesson of the text is this: It is through close communion with the Lord Jesus Christ that one receives the kind of training that makes one useful in his service.

The Calling of the Twelve Apostles, Luke 6:12–13b

Jesus Sought Communion with God, verse 12

The appointment of the twelve apostles was not a sudden and abrupt act without reflection on Jesus’ part. There were in fact three stages in the selection process. [11]

First, they became acquainted with the Lord, and they began to spend time with him and travel with him, although they remained in their own homes and at their various secular occupations (cf. John 1:37–51). The second stage came with breaking their ties to home and their daily occupations (cf. Matt. 4:18–22). The final stage came when twelve of his followers were selected from the larger body for a closer relationship to him and appointed to their special tasks.

The account of their appointment, contained in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16), [12] begins with Jesus solemnly seeking divine guidance. Mark said that Jesus “went up on the mountain.” The actual site is not given, [13] but the fact that he went to a mountain probably had theological significance. At other important moments in redemptive history, e.g., the giving of the Law at Sinai (Exod. 19:3–6; 24:12), a mountain became the setting of divine revelation or of being close to God. [14] The appointment of the Twelve was not an occasion when God gave new revelation, but it was nevertheless an epochal occasion in Christ’s ministry. That Jesus went to a mountain suggests that this was a “significant moment” in his mission. [15] There were several such mountain-top experiences in Jesus’ lifetime (Matt. 4:8; 5:1; Mark 9:2 [cf. 2 Pet. 1:18, “the holy mountain”], Mark 13:3; Matt. 28:16; Acts 1:12).

Luke adds the significant detail, “that He went off to the mountain to pray.” He adds, “He spent the whole night in prayer to God.” [16] He uses a rare verb (ἦν διανυκτερεύων, ēn dianuktereuōn) [17] that means “to pass the night in watching.” [18] Medical writers used the expression to speak of whole night vigils. [19] The form expresses “the persevering energy of the vigil.” [20]

By this time the Lord had numerous followers, but the demands of his present and future work required the selection of a special “messianic fellowship” of twelve men. [21]

Jesus Found Guidance in Prayer

Godet pictures the Lord Jesus in a lengthy communion with God presenting the names of his followers, one by one, to his Father, and God’s finger pointing out those to whom Jesus should entrust this great work. [22]

There are two important lessons here that should not be overlooked. The first lesson applies to those involved in the work of the Lord. Later passages in the NT (Acts 1:24; 6:6; 13:2–3; 14:23) indicate that the early Christians followed Jesus’ pattern when they had to appoint people to offices, responsible positions, and duties. The pattern to be followed is this: pray before you make serious decisions! [23]

The second lesson applies to all of us as individual believers. We all need times of solitude with God. These times are essential for our well-being as Christians. They provide an opportunity to reflect, pray, and read Scripture. The colorful Southern preacher, Vance Havner, said we need to heed Jesus’ advice, “Come away by yourselves to secluded place and rest a while” (Mark 6:31). Havner said, “If you don’t come apart, you will come apart—you’ll go to pieces!” [24]

Kent Hughes comments:

Too many of us wake up to a clock radio, shave to the news, drive through noisy traffic, work in the din of the office, listen to the rush-hour reports, relax to the evening news, and drift off to sleep surrounded by the base thump, thump of the family stereo. We need silence.... We need a sanctuary, a hermitage. It is not that hard—a parked car in the park, a church sanctuary, [a quiet room or place at the library or at home], a walk on a biking path, a few minutes downstairs before the family wakes up.... Pressured people that we are...prayer to God is what we need most. [25]

Jesus Selected the Twelve, verse 13 A-B

The gospel writers clearly indicate that Jesus’ prayer was answered. Luke notes that after his evening vigil Jesus “called His disciples to Him.” The Greek word translated “disciple” (μαθητή̑, mathētēs) simply means “one who engages in learning, a pupil.” [26] Here it refers to Jesus’ disciples, i.e., his adherents and followers, those who viewed him as Teacher and Master, or Rabbi. [27] Luke’s gospel clearly suggests that there was a larger number of disciples present at this time from which Jesus selected the Twelve. [28] Mark uses a different word and says he “summoned” (προσκαλεῒται, proskaleitai) them. In this context “to “summon” has the idea “to call” or “to select.” Luke agrees. He says Jesus “chose twelve of them.” [29]

A Jew living in Jesus’ day would note here a striking contrast between Jesus and other rabbis. The custom at that time for a young man desiring to study under a rabbi was for him to select a teacher and link up with him for instruction. The Mishnah, for example, offers this bit of counsel: “Take to yourself a teacher and acquire a companion.” [30] With Jesus and his disciples, however, the procedure was fundamentally different. He took the initiative in selecting each one of his immediate circle.31 This was true whether one is speaking of discipleship or apostleship. [32]

All commentators agree that the number “twelve” is significant here. They also agree that it relates in some way to the twelve tribes of Israel. At that point the agreement ends, and the commentators are divided over the significance of the number. There are two points of view. First, some argue that the number twelve shows that the church is the new Israel. Just as there were twelve patriarchs over the old Israel in OT times, so there are twelve apostles over the new Israel, the spiritual Israel, i.e., the church. This new Israel replaces the old. [33] This view, it seems to me, is flawed.

Second, others affirm that the number twelve is related to Israel and shows the abiding relationship between the twelve apostles and the nation. The Jews are not abandoned by salvation history. [34] It is true that the “church functions in a way parallel to Israel and [is today the] temporary steward of the promise.” [35] However, the NT makes clear that in a future time the Jews shall recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Rom. 11:25–29), and the twelve apostles shall occupy a place of honor among them (cf. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:29–30). [36] The NT nowhere teaches that the church permanently replaces Israel in the plan of God. The number twelve emphasizes the continuity in God’s redemptive program. It marks the continuity of the apostles with the promises made to Israel in OT times, and it speaks of their relationship to Israel in the future. [37] In a futuristic sense the Twelve are “eschatological figures.” [38] They will “one day rise to govern eschatological Israel.” [39]

The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles, Mark 3:14

The Appointment Of The Apostles

Mark says, “He appointed twelve.” The verb translated “appointed” (ἐποίησεν, epoiēsen) means “to make,” or “to create.” There is a certain sense in which a translation like “he created the Twelve” might be appropriate. [40] It is clear that in the early church “the Twelve” became a fixed expression for this band of men (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5). [41] However, the translation, “appointed” is better here for two reasons. First, the Septuagint uses the term in this way of the appointment of Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. 12:6) and of priests (1 Kings 12:31). Second, the immediate context in Mark throws the emphasis on the purpose for which they were appointed and not on bare fact that they were created as a group. [42]

At this point, students of the Greek text of Mark differ with one another. The NIV, for example, adds at this point the phrase, “designating them apostles.” This reflects the reading of a number of Greek manuscripts of Mark’s gospel (οὕ̑ καὶ ἀποστόλου̑ ὠνόμασεν, hous kai apostolous ōnomasen). [43] The NASB, however, omits the phrase from Mark 3:14 because its translators believe it was inserted there by a scribe who wanted the verse to agree with Luke 6:13. Because Luke has the phrase we can confidently say the idea is scriptural—even if it did not appear in the original autograph of Mark. However, there are good reasons for concluding that the phrase did occur in the original manuscript of Mark, and we shall treat it as authentic here.

The word “apostle” (ἀπόστολο̑, apostolos) is derived from the verb ἀποστέλλω (apostellō), which means “to send forth.” The verb was often used in secular Greek of the sending of somebody to represent the sender authoritatively. In such contexts, the verb coupled the two ideas of sending and the authorization given to the one who was sent. The noun ἀπόστολο̑ occurs seventy-nine times in the New Testament, primarily in Paul and Luke (thirty-four times in each). It always denotes a man who is sent, and sent with full authority (cf. John 13:16). The term appears to be used of two groups: (1) In a general sense it is infrequently used of those sent as fully commissioned missionaries of local churches (Acts 14:4, 14; Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23). (2) In a technical and higher sense, however, it is used not of representatives (missionaries) of a local congregation but of personal officers of Jesus (“Apostle of Jesus Christ,” cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1) by whom the church is built. In this sense it is used only of the original Twelve, Matthias (who replaced Judas Iscariot) Paul, and the Lord’s brother James (Gal. 1:19; cf. 1 Cor. 15:7). [44] Only these fifteen men have ever occupied the office of apostle, and there will be none added to their number.

Insofar as there is a background for ἀπόστολο̑ in Hebrew words, it is the verb שָׁלַח (šālaḥ) and the noun שָׁלִיחַ (šālîaḥ). The noun attained technical status in intertestamental Judaism. Soon after the exile the Jews began the practice of sending out שְׁלוּחִים (s̄ elûḥîm), i.e., persons with definite commissions (teaching, collecting funds) which they had to fulfill as representatives of and clothed with the right and authority of the “holy community.” [45] Saul of Tarsus was sent to Damascus as a שָׁלִיחַ in this sense, i.e., he was clothed with full authority to act in the name of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin (Acts 9:1–2).

The Rabbis said of a שָׁלִיחַ, “the one sent by a man is as the man himself,” [46] i.e., the sent person is a minister plenipotentiary [47] for the one who sent him. [48] The idea goes back to the Old Testament. When David’s servants said to Abigail, “David has sent (שָׁלַח) us to you, to take you as his wife,” she bowed to them and in every respect treated them as if they were David himself (1 Sam. 25:40–41). Later when David sent his servants to console Hanun, king of the Ammonites, and they were humiliated and shamefully treated by that hapless king (he mutilated their beards and cut off their clothes at their hips), David went to war with Ammon, showing that such an insult to his messengers was an insult to the king himself (2 Sam. 10:1–19). [49]

As a result of that bestowal of authority, the Twelve went out in the place of Jesus. “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10:16).

The Training of the Apostles

Mark now sets forth Jesus’ purpose in appointing the Twelve with two subordinate clauses, each introduced by the word “that” (ἵνα, hina). He appointed them, first of all, “so that they would be with Him.” Mark’s point is not that Jesus felt “the need of human fellowship and sympathy,” although they did become, on a human level, his true friends. He would later say, “I have called you friends” (John 15:15), and “You are those who have stood by Me in My trials” (Luke 22:28). [50] However, at this point “it was not so much that He needed companionship as that they needed the incomparable privilege and benefit of daily communion with Him.” [51] It was Jesus’ purpose to train these men by granting them fellowship with himself. Living with him, watching him, listening to him, dreaming with him as he expressed his aspirations and plans was the best training for those who desired to serve him. “From the time of their being chosen...the twelve entered on a regular apprenticeship for the great office of apostleship, in the course of which they were to learn, in the privacy of an intimate daily fellowship with their Master, what they should do, believe, and teach, as his witnesses and ambassadors in the world.” [52]

There is a practical lesson here: Fellowship with Jesus through his Word and prayer is the best and simplest way of making real men and women of God even today. “Intimacy with Jesus is the best of all teachers.” [53] My father in the faith was the late Scottish evangelist, Neil Dougal. “Uncle Neil,” as we called him, never attended a university, theological seminary, or Bible College, but, like so many Brethren evangelists and Bible teachers, he read good books and knew his Bible well. When asked by people from time to time where he had gone to seminary, he would answer, “At the College of St. Mary.” The inevitable question was, “Where is the College of St. Mary?” With a smile he would say, “Seated at Jesus’ feet,” alluding, of course, to the posture of the sister of Martha and Lazarus as she listened to the Lord teach (Luke 10:39; John 11:32).

In the ensuing months the Twelve would learn many things from their Teacher—some of them explicitly taught and some of them “almost unconsciously absorbed.” [54] The Gospels indicate what some of these lessons were, and Everett Harrison has singled out eight of them: [55]

1. First, they learned the art of dealing with people. Watching Jesus work with people in difficult situations prepared them for future days when they would travel afar either alone or with their own small bands.
2. Second, they learned the discipline and contentment of living by faith with regard to finances. Just as Jesus had left the carpenter shop behind, they too had left their various occupations and were without a regular means of income. By example and teaching they learned to trust the loving care of the heavenly Father (Matt. 6:30).
3. Third, they learned to trust God in the midst of testing and trials. Because of the terrible storm that almost drowned them, as well as other events, they learned not to let physical dangers shake their confidence in the One who could preserve their lives (cf. Matt. 8:23–27).
4. Fourth, on at least one occasion Jesus sent them out by themselves to heal, preach, and cast out demons (Luke 9:1–6). Through this experience they learned that they could count on his enabling power even though he was not visibly with them.
5. Fifth, they received formal teaching from the Master. In his great discourses and private teaching he taught them of the kingdom, its entrance requirements (John 3:3–5), its ethical demands (Matt. 5–7), and the hatred its message would arouse in the world. He taught them of his future suffering and their own future persecution (Matt. 16:21; John 15:18–21).
6. Sixth, he gave them instruction in prayer. They were impressed by Jesus’ example, and they asked for guidance in this essential task. He set before them a model prayer with its worship of God, its submission to his will, its plea for daily sustenance, its appeal for forgiveness for sins committed, and its request for deliverance from situations that might lead to further sinning (Matt. 6:8–13).
7. Seventh, they learned that personal sin must be exposed, confronted, and rebuked. They learned this when Jesus exposed, confronted, and rebuked some of their sins. For example, he rebuked their intolerance of other believers. John, whom we view as the beloved disciple, had this glaring fault. He complained that he had seen someone casting out demons in Jesus’ name who was not part of the apostolic band (Mark 9:38–40). [56] Jesus refused to oppose the offender, but instead rebuked the disciple who was intolerant of someone who was obviously a supporter of Christ, even if he was not part of the “elect company of apostles.” He also rebuked their vindictiveness. On one occasion John and his brother James asked the Lord to call down fire from heaven to incinerate a Samaritan village that had not received their message (Luke 9:51–56). Jesus advocated patience with unbelievers, and John learned the lesson. In later years, Luke tells us (Acts 8:15), John would pray for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus also confronted the unholy ambition of his disciples. James and John had encouraged their mother, who financially supported Jesus (Matt. 27:55–56), [57] to request of the Master that he would give them the chief places of distinction and honor in the future kingdom (Matt. 20:20–23). The Lord confronted this sin of ambition and counseled them and all other Christian workers that it is the sovereign right of God the Father to assign both ministries and rewards. Repeatedly, Jesus sought to inculcate in his followers a spirit of humility. “What a miserable occupation for disciples of the lowly Son of Man,” says Everett Harrison, to be vying among themselves to be the greatest of his followers. He told them that the motivation of his mission was to serve and not be served (Mark 10:45). He set a child in their midst to demonstrate the helplessness of their human condition (Matt. 18:1–6). [58] The disciples felt they deserved their place in the kingdom, but Jesus sought to show them it was a matter of undeserved grace. The lesson was not easily grasped, and in the end the One who had come from God and who would soon return to him laid aside his garments, took a towel, and washed their feet—to their chagrin and shame (John 13:3–14).
8. Eighth and finally, they learned the demands of discipleship. He spoke to them of “hating” their families, bearing their own crosses, and renouncing all possessions (Luke 14:26, 27, 33). Jesus was not telling people that sacrifice and suffering were a condition of becoming a Christian. [59] He was telling them about the seriousness of being a disciple. He did not intend to tyrannize or use them, but he was seeking to place them in the same kind of servant relationship that he had assumed. Cross bearing meant death to self, whatever circumstances might bring. In the end they would learn that their Messiah would face suffering and death, but they did not ultimately desert him. They came to learn that suffering would lead to glory. [60]

The Mission of the Apostles

Their Immediate Mission: Preaching the Good News, vv. 14b–15

The second purpose clause in verse 14 is, “that He could send them out to preach.” The work was expanding, and Jesus was demonstrating his fitness for messianic leadership. He was now beginning the process of delegating authority to others to do the work he could not do alone. The verb translated “send” (ἀποστέλλω, apostellō) is the one from which we get the word “apostle.” They were sent out to preach, but Mark does not tell us what it was they were to preach. It was, no doubt, the same message preached by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1–2) and the Lord Jesus (Mark 1:14–15), namely, the coming of the kingdom of heaven. The verb “to preach” (κηρύσσειν, kēryssein) was used in non-biblical Greek of a herald. It meant “to make an official announcement, to announce, make known.” When used of John, Jesus, and the apostles, it has the idea of publicly declaring something, proclaiming aloud. It retains the original idea of authority and of proclaiming weighty affairs, in this case the good news of the kingdom. [61]

Furthermore, he gave them “authority to cast out the demons.” The Gospels do not sidestep the terrible reality of the existence of Satan and demons. It is the teaching of Scripture that Jesus came “to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). The apostolic Scriptures look forward to a time when Satan will be bound and ultimately cast with his demons into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:1–3, 7–10; cf. Matt. 25:41). Part of the kingdom message is the eventual overthrow of demonic power.

Matthew’s account adds that Jesus gave his apostles authority “to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness” (Matt. 10:1). These miraculous powers provided visible credentials that the apostles were divinely certified heralds of the king. [62] That these men were sent by Christ, that their mission was to act as his heralds, and that he gave them “authority” all underscore the reality of the authoritative nature of the apostolic commission.

Their Church-Age Mission: Establishing the Faith, John 14:25–26; 16:12–15; Ephesians 2:20
Initially the Twelve may have thought that their commission was limited to a short time and a specific area. [63] After the resurrection of the Lord, however, it became clear that their duties had only just begun. [64] “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). [65] The Father, Jesus told them, had granted him “all authority,” and by that authority he sent them unto all the nations with the assurance that he would be with them in spirit (Matt. 28:18–20). They were to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ, [66] and for their work they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:48–49; Acts 1:8). The limited preaching of the Twelve during Jesus’ earthly ministry was therefore to be followed by “their post-Resurrection preaching, which remains for us permanently in the NT scriptures.” [67]

In light of this later task, there are two promises of great significance in John’s gospel. The first of these promises is found in John 14:25–26. The Lord said of the Holy Spirit’s ministry to the apostles, “He will teach you all things.” This has to do with the clarity of divine revelation. There were many things that the apostles did not understand during our Lord’s time on earth. Through the Holy Spirit’s work they would come to understand them. Jesus added, “and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” This has to do with the continuity of divine revelation. It is sometimes suggested by opponents of biblical Christianity that it is ridiculous to place confidence in people like the apostle John who wrote his gospel some fifty to sixty years after the death of Christ. In response to such criticisms, we need only remember the promise of the Lord that the Holy Spirit would bring back to John’s mind, word for word, what the Lord Jesus had to say. We may not trust the memory of a ninety-year old man, but we can trust the Holy Spirit’s memory! [68]

Bible teacher Erling Olson was conducting the morning service at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. After the service a young man approached him with an expression of joy on his face. A year before he had been enrolled in a theological seminary in Philadelphia—a seminary that was liberal and unbelieving in its theology. One Sunday evening he had come to the church and, having heard the gospel of Christ, received Christ as his Savior. Upon hearing where he was studying, the pastor encouraged him to quit immediately and recommended another seminary, an evangelical one, where they believed and taught the Scriptures.

A year after believing Christ and changing seminaries, he heard Erling Olson preach on John 17:1, “Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven.” Olson spoke on the fact of the inspiration of Scripture. How, he asked, could a ninety-year old man remember the exact words Jesus had prayed fifty to sixty years before? He then turned the congregation’s attention to John 14:26. The aged apostle was not depending upon his own memory, “but the infallible, unfailing memory of the Spirit of God.”

The young man said to Mr. Olson, “I have known Christ as my Savior for the past year,...but I could never draw from [the Gospel of John] the blessing that I knew ought to be mine.” He said that whenever he read John, the questions, unbelief, and criticism of his liberal professors would come into his mind. “They ridiculed the idea that anyone could place any confidence in the statements of a man ninety years of age.” He then said, “I felt like shouting for joy when you dispelled the theory that it was not John’s memory, but rather that it was the Holy Spirit’s own memory bringing back to John, word for word, what the Lord Jesus had to say.” [69]

The second of the significant promises is found in John 16:12–13. Jesus said to the disciples, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” These words are “something of a pre-authentication of the remainder of the New Testament.” [70] Wright refers to them as “the promise of a New Testament Canon.” [71]

There were many things left unrevealed by Jesus when he returned to heaven. The Lord promised that this revelation would be completed after the Holy Spirit had come. This is of great practical importance. It is periodically suggested that we must go back to Jesus for our theology. The unspoken suggestion is that the later authors of the New Testament (especially Paul) have corrupted the simple ethical instruction of Jesus. This suggestion that we go back to Jesus’ teaching flies in the face of the teaching of our Lord, who plainly said that his teaching was incomplete and needed to be supplemented by what the Holy Spirit would reveal to the apostles. [72]

In this essay we are primarily concerned with the Twelve and their ministry. As noted above, however, fifteen men were ultimately appointed to the apostolic office. There were the original Twelve, who had a special relationship to the nation of Israel (cf. Matt. 10:5–6). When one of their number, viz. Judas Iscariot, abandoned the Lord, he was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15–26). In addition, James, the brother of Jesus, was elevated to this office (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7). Finally, Saul of Tarsus (known primarily by his Gentile name, Paul) was personally appointed and equipped by the risen Christ to be “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 1:1; cf. Acts 22:6–10; 26:16–18).

Although Paul was conscious of being called as an apostle, he unhesitatingly accepted the apostleship of the original Twelve. He saw no clash between his preaching and theirs: “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:11). He clearly acknowledged and respected their claim to apostolic authority as well as his own (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 3:5; 4:11). And if Peter is representative, the other apostles recognized Paul’s apostleship as well (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15–16). [73]

Jesus’ commission of his apostles meant that they possessed authority in communicating divine revelation, [74] and what they wrote under divine inspiration was “the voice of the Lord” to the church (1 Cor. 2:10; Gal. 1:11–12; cf. Deut. 18:16–19). They were enabled to give in the New Testament the true sense of the Old (Luke 24:27; Acts 26:22–23; 28:23) and to set forth the revelation of the New Testament as the inerrant standard for the new dispensation (1 Pet. 1:25; 1 John 4:6; John 14:26). In short, the apostles gave “the Word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13) to the church and were the mediators of normative teaching for the new age. Accordingly, later generations of believers have regarded apostolicity (apostolic authorship or authorship by someone in the apostolic circle) as the essential quality of New Testament Scripture.

The apostles regarded their teaching as being the foundation of the church and the standard by which all subsequent teaching was to be measured. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul speaks of the church “having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” He asserts that “the truth of Christ is in me,” and declares that those who preach a different gospel “are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:4, 10–13; cf. Gal. 1:6–8). Likewise the apostle John could write, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (2 John 10). The apostle Peter urged his readers to “remember...the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2). Likewise Jude (17) urged his readers “to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” As Dutch theologian, Herman Ridderbos, has written, “The authority of the Scriptures is the great presupposition of the whole of the biblical preaching and doctrine.” [75]

The apostles claimed absolute authority not only for their oral teachings but also for their written epistles. This is especially clear in Paul: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (1 Cor. 14:37). [76] He wrote to the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thess. 2:14). Later (3:14) he added, “And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame.”

There are clear indications in the New Testament that the early church acknowledged the authority given to the apostles by Christ. For instance, in Acts 2:42 it is said of the first believers: “they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). When believers sold their possessions to care for the needy, they brought the proceeds and laid them “at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:34–35, 37). When seven men were chosen by the church to be deacons, they were “brought before the apostles” for prayer and the laying on of hands (Acts 6:1–6). When Paul was converted and came to Jerusalem, “Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles” (Acts 9:27).

It is clear that Luke, the author of Acts, accepted the authority of the apostles, because he included so much material in his book setting forth the fact that the apostles were the authorized representatives of the Lord. This is true of the authority of the Twelve (Acts 1:2–5, 8, 15–26; 2:14, 43; 4:33; 5:12–16; 6:2–6; 8:14–24; 10:40–42). It is true of the authority of Paul as well (9:1–22; 13:2; 17:13; 18:11; 19:8–20; 20:17–27; 22:6–21; 26:12–18; 28:30–31).

Their Eschatological Mission: Ruling over Israel, Matt. 19:27–29; Luke 22:28–30

It has often been pointed out that apart from the inner circle of Peter, James, and John, very little is said of the Twelve after the resurrection. Does this imply that their role ended with the foundation of the church? It does not. The Lord Jesus clearly believed that “Israel has a future.” He spoke of that future in word that for any Jew would have “conjured up the eschatological hope for Israel’s restoration, the re-establishment of the twelve tribes. [77] Jesus promised the Twelve that one day “in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30).

After the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70 and the terrible Holocaust of Nazi Germany, “God’s plan for Israel might look derailed, [but] it is not.” Jesus calls the future day of Israel’s history “the regeneration” or “rebirth” (παλιγγενεσία, palingenesia). The word “regeneration’ appears one other time in the NT (Titus 3:5), and there it refers to personal rebirth by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 19:28 it speaks of the rebirth of the earth during Messiah’s reign. [78]

In that future day the Lord Jesus will “sit on His glorious throne” and the Twelve will also sit on thrones “judging the tribes of Israel.” Matthew does not discuss the chronology, but the apostle John places these events immediately following the second coming in the millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:4–6). [79] The Twelve will then judge the tribes of Israel, the term “judging” suggesting the exercise of authority over a period of time. [80] The disciples who served as the foundation of the church [81] will then serve as “patriarchs and princes” [82] —“the nucleus of a restored Israel.” [83] Jesus Christ will reign upon the earth, and his twelve apostles will share in his reign.

The Identity of the Twelve Apostles, Mark 3:16–19 [84]

The Characteristics of the Twelve

They were Young

Christian art and preaching have often obscured the fact that “Christianity began as a young people’s movement.” [85] Most of the apostles were probably still in their twenties when they went to join Jesus. Jesus himself was about thirty years of age when his ministry began (Luke 3:23). In the words of Psalm 110:3, he went out to preach with the “dew of [His] youth” upon him. [86] His manner of address to his disciples—he called them “children” (τέκνα, tekna, Mark 10:24), “little children” (τεκνία, teknia, John 13:33), and “my dear children” (παιδία, paidia, John 21:5) [87] —indicates that they were younger people.

After his resurrection Jesus met Peter by the lake and spoke to him of his future death. “When you grow old...someone else will gird you” (John 21:18). It would be thirty years or more before he was “old” and died at about the age of sixty (ad 64). [88] Tradition says that John was the youngest of the apostles, and he probably lived until nearly the end of the first century and died around the age of ninety. He was certainly a young man when Jesus called him. [89] Looking a few years after the call of the Twelve we first meet the great apostle Paul, and he is spoken of as “a young man named Saul” (Acts 7:58). Some thirty years later he would speak of himself as an “old man” (Philemon 9). Another example comes to mind, viz., Timothy, Paul’s young co-worker. To the end of his days Paul spoke of him as youthful (1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22), yet he did not hesitate to commission him to promote harmony in one divided church or to check false teaching and maintain godly order in another. [90]

On the walls of the Catacombs, the subterranean burial places of the early persecuted Christians, Jesus is portrayed not as an old and weary man but as a young shepherd out on the hills. The original version of Isaac Watts’ great hymn makes the point well,

When I survey the wondrous cross
Where the young Prince of glory died. [91]

Stewart’s words are true: “No one has ever understood the heart of youth in its [joyousness] and gallantry and generosity and hope, its sudden loneliness and haunting dreams and hidden conflicts and strong temptations, no one has understood it nearly so well as Jesus. And no one ever realized more clearly than Jesus did that the adolescent years of life, when strange dormant thoughts are stirring and the whole world begins to unfold, are God’s best chance with the soul. When Jesus and youth come together, deep calls to deep. There is an immediate, instinctive feeling of kinship, and everything that is fine and noble and pure in youth bows down in admiration and adoration before Him.” [92]

There are some practical observations that may be drawn from Jesus’ example in choosing young men for his team. [93] First, it helps answer the frequently asked question, “How old do men (and women, for that matter) have to be before they can be entrusted with spiritual responsibilities?” That Jesus chose men who were probably in their late twenties indicates how he would answer the question. Second, the impetuousness of youthful enthusiasm (as well as the arrogance of youthful egos and the mistakes of human ignorance) are not a barrier to Christian service. The apostles are an illustration that these shortcomings may be used to the glory of God.

Alexander Strauch, the well-known Bible teacher and authority on church leadership, was invited to address a conference of elders on the topic of leadership training. In one of his addresses he expounded 2 Timothy 2:2 and the need for older men to prepare younger men and to share leadership with such men when they are ready to lead. As Strauch forcefully made his point, a church elder stood up and with a great show of annoyance left the room. In the church foyer he told everyone that would listen that the speaker inside had no time for older men. “I guess we old men are useless,” he said in angry, self-pitying tones. His reaction shows that the young are not the only ones who act immaturely. Strauch’s only point was that elders need to be preparing young men for leadership. Too often, however, older men can be obstructionists and stiff-necked traditionalists.

Third, God does use the young, and, in fact, many pioneer ventures and efforts that break out of established ministries and churches are spearheaded by the young. The ministry of Jesus was just such a pioneer effort (cf. Matt. 9:17). Three renewal movements in church history illustrate God’s use of young people in important works. [94]

Renewal Movement # 1: The Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther was thirty-four when he nailed his “Ninety-Five Theses” to the church door, and John Calvin was twenty-seven when he published the first edition of his Institutes. John Knox launched the Scottish Reformation at the age of forty-five, but he had already spent twelve years in prison. He had actually become a reformer at the age of thirty.

Renewal Movement # 2: The Evangelical Revival. John and Charles Wesley were converted in 1738 when John was thirty-five and Charles was thirty-one. George Whitefield was converted at the age of twenty-four, and he owed a great deal to a book written by Henry Scougal (The Life of God in the Soul of Man), who died at the age of twenty-eight.

Renewal Movement # 3: The Brethren Movement. J. N. Darby was twenty-eight when, in 1828, his issued the tract in which he laid down his views of the church. B. W. Newton was twenty-four when he moved to Plymouth and took a leading place in the assembly there. George Müller and Henry Craik were both twenty-four when they commenced their joint ministry in Teignmouth (1829). Müller was thirty-one when he opened his first orphanage in Bristol (1836). Robert Chapman was twenty-nine when he started his ministry in Barnstable in 1832, and he remained at it for the next seventy years.

Fourth, those who are more mature—this may exclude some who are “old,” because some who are old are immature—should seek to help the young. The older and more mature believers should seek to channel their impetuousness, be patient with their egos, and correct their mistakes. These are defects “that time will cure.” [95] Sadly there is no time left for “time to cure” the defects of the old.

They were Males, cf. 1 Timothy 2:12–14

Although many women became followers of Jesus (Luke 8:2–3); though women were the first to see him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:1–10; John 20:11–18); and although there were women prophets in the early church (Acts 21:8–9)—no woman was appointed as an apostle. [96] The Lord did not explicitly state his reasons, “but the likeliest reason is that God has committed the responsibility of the ministry of the Word of God among men and women to Spirit-appointed men.” [97] This is certainly what the apostles taught the church, and that instruction is contained in the inspired, authoritative Scriptures (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8–15). The question is not one of equality versus inequality, for women are equally God’s creatures, equally human, and equally “in the image of God” (cf. Gen. 1:27). The issue is simply one of divinely ordained function. [98]

Commenting on the teaching of Paul, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet,” Bible teacher Susan Foh writes:

The choice of an all-male apostolate is the result or expression of the principle in 1 Timothy 2:12–14, of the subordination (which merely means ordering under) of the woman in the church. We know that the choice of men as apostles is significant because of 1 Timothy 2:12–14. To have chosen a woman as an apostle would have contradicted the principle of the woman’s subordination in the church (1 Cor. 14:34). Scriptural principles tell us how to interpret biblical examples, not the reverse. [99]

They were Diverse

One of the most striking features of the twelve apostles is their diversity. They were temperamentally different: Peter was marked by action and impetuosity; John was meditative, thoughtful, and prayerful; Andrew had a shining, untroubled faith; Thomas was haunted by constitutional melancholy. [100] There were political differences among them. Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot are a case in point. One had been in the service of Herod Antipas, a puppet of the Roman government. The other was a zealot, one of a number of intense nationalists who advocated the overthrow of the Romans. One had been an “unpatriotic Jew who degraded himself by becoming a servant of the alien ruler,” and the other was a super-patriot “who chafed under the foreign yoke and sighed for emancipation.” [101]

This diversity is a wonderful illustration of “the unifying power of the Savior’s love.” [102] “This union of opposites was not accidental,” wrote A. B. Bruce, “but was designed by Jesus as a prophecy of the future. He wished the twelve to be the church in miniature or germ; and therefore He chose them so as to intimate that, as among them distinctions of publican and zealot were unknown, so in the church of the future there should be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, bond nor free, but only Christ—all to each, and in each of the all.” [103]

The Names of the Twelve, Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:13

The names of the twelve apostles are given in four places in the New Testament. In these “four catalogues of apostles”104 a number of significant things stand out:105 Peter is first in every list, and Judas Iscariot is last. The first four names in all four lists are two pairs of brothers (Peter and Andrew, James and John). In each list there are three groups of four names, and the same four names appear in the same group in each list. No individual is transferred to another group in another list. Furthermore, the same name heads each of the three groups in all four catalogues, viz., Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus. This suggests that the Twelve were organized into smaller groups, each with a leader. Peter, James, and John appear first in Mark’s gospel because they were the inner core of disciples who were with Jesus on some special occasions, e.g., the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37), the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1), and the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37). [106]

The Apostolic Roll [107]

First Group
Simon Peter	The man of rock
Andrew	Peter’s brother
James and	sons of Zebedee; "Boanerges" (sons of thunder)
John

Second Group
Philip	The earnest inquirer
Bartholomew, or Nathanael	The guileless Israelite
Thomas	The melancholy
Matthew	The tax collector

Third Group
James, the son of Alphaeus	James the less (?)
Thaddaeus; Judas, the son of James; Lebbaeus (Matt. 10:3, KJV)	The “three-named disciple”
Simon	The zealot
Judas Iscariot	The traitor

Simon Peter

The first apostle in each list is Peter. Matthew began his list by saying, “first, Simon, who is called Peter” (10:2). Peter, like his brother Andrew, was a fisherman (Matt. 4:18) from Bethsaida on Galilee (John 1:44). The adjective “first” (πρῶτο̑, prōtos) does not mean that Peter was the first called—Andrew was (cf. John 1:40–42). Neither does it mean that he was the first to see the risen Lord, although of the apostles he was (1 Cor. 15:5), nor that his name is first on the list, which would be a truism. Rather it indicates his privileged status: he is primus inter pares (“first among equals”), the chief of the apostles, the most prominent of the Twelve. [108] Care needs to be exercised in describing Peter’s position. Bengel’s terse comment is to the point: “He was first among the apostles, not placed over the apostles; in the apostolic office, not beyond it.” [109]

Mark adds the phrase, “to whom He gave the name Peter” (3:16). The name Peter, meaning “rock,” is the Greek form (πέτρο̑, petros) [110] of the Aramaic word Cephas (יפָא, kêp̄á̄, cf. John 1:42, Κηφᾶ̑, kēphas). [111] Jesus indicated when they first met that Simon would be called Peter (John 1:42). [112] Mark seems to indicate that it was at this precise occasion, i.e., the appointment of the Twelve, [113] that Peter actually appropriated the name. [114] The giving of a name frequently conferred a promise to a person or “designated appointment to a special task.” [115] The name “Peter,” says Lane, “conveys a promise which sets Simon apart as spokesman and representative of the Twelve during Jesus’ ministry and as leader of the early church during its formative stage.” [116] Peter is a dominant figure throughout the Gospels and through the events recorded in the first half of the Book of Acts. Once the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was over, his movements are hard to trace.

The Christians in the centuries following the end of the apostolic age were quite intrigued about the later history of the apostles, and a body of legendary literature appeared. [117] According to these writings Peter ended his life in Rome. Discovering a conspiracy against Peter, his fellow Christians urged him to leave the city. As he did, he met Jesus coming into the city. “Lord, where are you going (Domine, quo vadis)?” he asked. Jesus answered, “I go to Rome to be crucified.” Peter asked, “Lord, are you being crucified again?” And he said, “Yes, Peter, again I shall be crucified.” Peter, filled with new resolve, turned around and returned to the city where, at his own request, he was crucified upside down, for he considered that he was not worthy to die as his Lord had died. [118]

James the son of Zebedee

James [119] and his younger brother John [120] were the sons of Zebedee, a fisherman whose business was so successful that he employed others (Mark 1:20). Zebedee’s wealth apparently gave him some social position and may explain why his family was known to the high priest (John 18:15–16).

Zebedee’s wife and the mother of James and John was Salome, the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother (John 19:25 [“His mother’s sister”]; cf. Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 8:3). [121] James and John were therefore Jesus’ first cousins. Salome, as noted above, was one of the women who contributed financially to the support of Jesus and his disciples (Matt. 27:55–56; Luke 8:3). She was something of an aggressive and ambitious woman who sought worldly success and power for her sons (Matt. 20:21). It may have been from her that James and John inherited some of their own ardor, intensity, vehemence, and warm affection. Their temperamental nature led Jesus to give them the nickname “Boanerges” (Βοανηργέ̑), which means, “Sons of Thunder.” [122] Most commentators give as the reason for the name the intolerant and vindictive outbursts mentioned above (Mark 9:38; Luke 9:54). The nickname may, however, have a more positive interpretation. Like the name “Peter,” it may refer to their place in the new order—they would become men whose witness to Christ would be as mighty as thunder. [123]

What is truly striking about this apostle who served in the inner circle of the apostles is that “we know almost nothing about him.” [124] He never appears in the gospels apart from the company of his brother. He does occupy the special place of being the first of the apostles to gain the martyr’s crown. Luke notes that Herod Agrippa I had him put to death (Acts 12:2).

John

John was also in the inner circle and seems to have had a close relationship with Peter. Together they prepared the “Last Supper” (Luke 22:8), witnessed (with James) the agony in the Garden (Matt. 26:37), followed Jesus to his trial (John 18:15), and visited the tomb (John 20:2–8). They also worked together in the years following the resurrection (Acts 3:1–10; Gal. 2:9). At the Last Supper John is seen “reclining on Jesus’ bosom” and is described as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23–25; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). He alone of all the disciples was present at Jesus’ death on the cross, his safety probably insured by his acquaintance with the high priest (John 18:16). At that time he received the mother of his dying friend as a member of his own family (John 19:26–27). In late life he was to write the Fourth Gospel, his wonderful epistles, and, the crown jewel of biblical eschatology, the Book of Revelation. This latter work was written during the reign of Domitian (ad 81–96) [125] while John was in exile on the Island of Patmos (Rev. 1:19). [126] Upon his liberation from Patmos he went to Ephesus, where he died and was buried [127] —and where legends about him began to develop. [128]

In his extreme old age, according to Jerome, the frail apostle needed to be carried to meetings of the church. In the meetings he was unable to speak, other than to encourage the believers with the words, “Little children, love one another.” Wearied with the repetition of this brief admonition in every meeting, some asked, “Master, why do you always say this?” he replied, “It is the Lord’s command, and, if this alone is done, it is enough.” [129]

This story has the ring of truth for his first epistle repeats the command to love over and over again (3:18; cf. 2:10; 3:10–11, 14, 23; 4:7–8, 11–12, 20–21). And, says Broadus, it is not the sentimental and effeminate love of modern Christianity. John strongly condemned and denounced the prevailing heresies and evils of his day. He did not preach a love divorced from reality; he was instead intensely practical, insisting that Christian love must show itself in loving action and useful service, or else it is nothing. At the end John was still the vehement, uncompromising, and outspoken “Son of Thunder” that he was in his days as a young man. [130] Yet there was a difference. “The vaulting ambition which once aspired to be next to royalty in a worldly kingdom, now seeks to overcome the world, to bear testimony to the truth, to purify the churches, and glorify God.” [131]

In short, the days of John’s “vaulting ambition” must be seen in light of his end. When James and John asked Jesus for the chief places in the kingdom, the Lord asked if they could drink the cup which he had to drink. They answered that they could, and Jesus told them that the time would come when they would indeed drink that cup (Matt. 20:22–23; Mark 10:35–39). As Barclay observes, both men did drink the cup of self-sacrifice. James drank it when his life was cut short in martyrdom. John lived to be almost a hundred years of age and died in peace. They illustrated the picture on a Roman coin, which shows an ox before an altar and a plough and contains the inscription, “Ready for Either.” The Christian who dies in a heroic moment and the believer who lives a long life of faithful service both drink the cup. The Christian must be ready for either path of self-sacrificing service. [132]

This is an important lesson to remember when evaluating the prospects of young leaders. Time spent in the presence of Christ (in his Word and in prayer) will help in the maturation process. The shortcomings of young servants of Christ must be seen in light of what Christ can make of them, and the apostolic band is “Exhibit A” in proving that he can make great men out of ordinary men.

Andrew

Simon Peter’s brother Andrew is listed second by Matthew, who seeks to pair the brothers. He is listed fourth by Mark because he was not part of the innermost circle of apostles. Like his brother, Andrew [133] was a fisherman, but, unlike his brother, we know little else about him. He is nevertheless significant, because it was he who brought Peter to Christ (John 1:35–44). He also appears in the account of the feeding of the five thousand as the one who found the boy with the loaves and fishes (John 6:8–9). On another occasion he enabled some Greeks to speak to Jesus (John 12:22). Finally, it was questioning by Andrew along with Peter, James, and John that elicited from the Lord the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:3).

Andrew’s role is that of the person quietly committed to bringing others to the Lord. Milligan calls him “the first home missionary [for bringing Peter], and the first foreign missionary [for bringing the Greeks].” [134]

One of the early teachers at Emmaus Bible College was Alfred P. Gibbs. I never met Mr. Gibbs, but I did hear his brother Edwin preach on one occasion in Boston. Edwin Gibbs confessed that he was not as well known as his brother Alfred. “But,” he said, “I am the one who led Alfred P. Gibbs to Christ.” Like Edwin Gibbs, Andrew did not receive the limelight that others did. What Andrew wanted was to be near the Lord and to bring others to him as well.

Legend says that Andrew ministered in Scythia, the rough and barbarous region north-east of the Black Sea, and was therefore adopted as the patron-saint of Russia. [135] Another legend says he died in Achaia in Greece where he was bound, not nailed, to a decussate (i.e., X-shaped) cross. I should also add, for the benefit of my fellow Scots, that in ad 740 he was made the patron saint of Scotland, owing to the belief that a monk named Regulus was told by an angel to take three fingers, an arm bone, one tooth, and a kneecap from Andrew’s coffin and travel to the West. Finally he settled in the town on the east coast of Scotland that bears Andrew’s name. [136]

Philip

Philip, says William Barclay, “has been rescued from oblivion by the Fourth Gospel.” [137] Like Peter and Andrew, Philip [138] was from Bethsaida, which may suggest that he, like them, was a fisherman (John 1:44). In the NT lists of the apostles, Philip always stands at the head of the second group of four. He was the first man to whom Jesus addressed the words, “Follow Me” (John 1:43). After his call, his first action was to find Nathaniel and lead him to Christ—an indication that he had an evangelist’s heart ((John 1:45–46). [139] He appears next at the feeding of the five thousand, and Jesus’ question to him (“Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” John 6:5) suggests that Philip was in charge of the eating arrangements of the apostolic band. [140] The next time Philip appears is in the closing days of Jesus’ ministry when some Greeks, perhaps because of his Greek name, ask him to be their ambassador to Jesus (John 12:21). Philip’s reaction was to go to Andrew, revealing him to be a man who disliked responsibility—or a man with “faith without confidence.” [141] The last glimpse of Philip comes during Jesus’ farewell address in the Upper Room. After Jesus announced that he was going to the Father, Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (John 14:8). For Philip, seeing was believing. He could not believe that any real knowledge of the Father was possible without an actual theophany. Jesus used the question to affirm that he was the full and final revelation of God. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). [142]

Bartholomew

Bartholomew appears in all four apostolic lists in the NT (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), but he is otherwise unmentioned by that name in the NT. Since the ninth century, Bartholomew has frequently been identified with Nathanael, and this is the view of most, [143] but not all, [144] modern writers. [145] If Bartholomew and Nathanael are the same person, then we know that it was Philip who brought him, a native of Cana of Galilee (John 21:2), to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:45–46). A true Israelite, without guile, Nathanael Bar-Tholami (“Nathaniel, son of Tholami”) “gave a profound declaration of the messianic identity of Jesus. Jesus, in turn, stated that Nathanael would see even greater demonstrations of [his messiahship] (John 1:47–51).” [146] Church tradition and legend [147] suggest he preached in India. [148]

Matthew

In Matthew 9:9 the evangelist tells his readers that “a man called Matthew” [149] was “sitting in the tax collector’s booth” [150] when Jesus said to him, “‘Follow me!’ And he got up and followed Him.” In the parallel accounts in Mark (2:14) and Luke (5:27), Matthew is called “Levi.” It was not uncommon for Jews to have two or more names. The name “Levi” may indicate that he was a Levite, the heritage of which would have given him “an intimate acquaintance with Jewish tradition.” [151] Mark calls him, “Levi the son of Alphaeus,” which makes it likely that he had a brother in the twelve, for among them there was a James who was also the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3).

As Barclay notes, the Gospels tell us very little about Matthew personally, yet they do tell us one thing that allows us to know “a great deal about the kind of man he must have been.” [152] In the Judaism of Matthew’s day, tax collectors were viewed as unclean in a special way. [153] Jesus’ evaluation of tax collectors was in keeping with the Jewish attitude. [154] He singled them out as examples of sinfulness—as those outside the believing community (Matt. 5:46; 18:17). At the same time Jesus cites them as examples of how those far from God can be converted (Luke 18:9–14). In fact, his invitation to the lowest of sinners to enter the kingdom earned him the accusation, “a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matt. 11:19). [155]

Luke says that, at the time of Jesus’ call, Matthew “left everything behind and got up and began to follow Him” (Luke 5:28). Barclay notes that there was one thing that Matthew did take with him, and that was his pen. Ancient Christian tradition is unanimous that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew. [156]

Gundry advanced the hypothesis that Matthew was a note-taker during Jesus’ ministry and that his notes provided the basis for much of what we find in the Gospels. He notes that Matthew’s duties as a tax collector would require that he be fluent in Aramaic and Greek and that he be accurate in jotting down information. As a Levite he was probably acquainted with the OT both in Hebrew and Greek, knowledge evident in the author of the first gospel. Commenting on Matthew’s qualifications to write his gospel, Gundry wrote that the apostle “was admirably fitted for such a function among the unlettered apostles.” [157]

It is from literature written after the NT era that we learn what little we know of Matthew’s later years. Socrates offers the legend that the apostles decided by lot where they would labor, and Matthew was allotted Ethiopia. [158] Clement of Alexandria passes on the fragments of information that the apostle was a vegetarian [159] and that he died a natural death. [160]

Thomas

Thomas was also named “Didymus,” which in Aramaic means “twin.” [161] In the Synoptic Gospels Thomas only appears in the lists of the apostles. It is John’s gospel that supplies significant insights into his life and character (John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–29; 21:2). Popular opinion has been unkind to Thomas, writes Barclay, commemorating the most famous event in his life, his unbelieving reaction to the report of Jesus’ resurrection (20:24–25), by giving him the sobriquet “doubting Thomas.” [162]

Thomas also showed his perplexity and misapprehension when Jesus told the disciples he was going to his “Father’s house” (John 14:1–2). He responded, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?” As Morris notes, Thomas revealed at this time his “fundamental honesty.” He would not let Jesus’ words stand as though he understood them when he did not. [163]

Thomas’s temperament has been described as “that of a man who finds the best things too good to be true, and who usually imagines that the worst foreseen possibility will be realized. He requires direct personal evidence, and will not hastily accept the testimony of his friends.” [164]

Yet Thomas should also be appreciated for his strengths. He was a man of loyalty and courage. Believing that a return to Judea would eventuate in Jesus being stoned to death, he said to the other disciples, “Let us also go, so that we may die with Him” (John 11:16). His bewildered question about Jesus’ destiny elicited from the Savior one of his great sayings: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). It must also be remembered that his unbelief turned to faith when he saw the risen Christ, and his doubts gave way to one of the profound confessions in the NT, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

The inspired Word has no more to say about Thomas, but legend and tradition are not silent about his later life. When the disciples were given different spheres, says Eusebius, Thomas was given Parthia (north-east Iran). [165] Early church historians, Socrates and Sozomen, speak of a “magnificent church” [166] in the city of Edessa in Mesopotamia, which suggests the martyrdom of Thomas in that city. Barclay, citing Sophronius’s additions to Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men, offers a different scenario. Sophronius said that Thomas preached “to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Carmanians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians and Magians and died at Calamina in India.” Barclay notes, “To this day in South India there is a church which calls itself ‘The Christians of St. Thomas,’ and which traces its descent and origin direct to the apostle Thomas.” Such claims, he wrote, are “wrapped in mystery.” [167]

James the son of Alphaeus

The qualifying phrase, “the son of Alphaeus,” distinguishes this James from the son of Zebedee and may suggest, if it is the same Alphaeus, that James was the brother of Matthew. In spite of the sparsest of information in the NT, scholarly discussion of James has become quite involved. Not only have scholars suggested that Matthew was his brother (or stepbrother), but they have also suggested that the children of Clopas (Joseph, and possibly Thaddaeus—also named Judas—and Simon the Zealot) were his brothers as well. [168] If left to the inspired record alone, he is the apostle of whom we know the least. [169] Commenting on this fact, Jones helpfully remarks, “Much faithful, patient, humble service goes unrecorded and unnoticed of men...[but is] remembered in heaven.” [170]

Thaddaeus

In Matthew (10:3) and Mark (3:18) the next apostle is called “Thaddaeus,” [171] while in Luke (6:16) and Acts (1:13) he is called “Judas the son of James.” [172] The name Thaddaeus comes from a root roughly meaning “the beloved,” [173] and it is possible that this disciple was known as “Judas Thaddaeus” or “Judas the beloved.” [174] The names “Thaddaeus” and “Judas the son of James” are used to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot.

The Synoptic Gospels record no word or action of Thaddaeus. [175] It is in John’s account of the Upper Room Discourse that his one recorded utterance is found. Under the name “Judas (not Iscariot),” he asked, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?” Jesus answered, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him” (John 14:22–23). In the immediate context Jesus has distinguished between what the world will perceive or be given and what the disciples will enjoy. Thaddaeus could not square this distinction with his conviction that the earthly kingdom of Messiah would soon be established in undeniable and irresistible splendor. [176] The Old Testament did in fact predict just such a kingdom (Isa. 11:1–16; Dan. 7:13–14). Jesus did not deny that there will be such a denouement of world history in the end time, but he insisted that the promise of which he was then speaking was something to be enjoyed much sooner within the circle of his believing people. [177]

Simon the Zealot

The New Testament tells us nothing about Simon the Zealot but his name. [178] In Matthew (10:4) and Mark (3:18) he is called “Simon the Cananaean” (Σίμον ὁ Καναναῒο̑), while in Luke (6:15) and Acts (1:13) he is called “Simon the Zealot” (Σίμον ὁ Ζηλωτὴ̑).The term “Cananaean” does not derive from “Canaanite” [179] or “Cana” [180] but from the Aramaic word (קַנַאָן, qańān) for “zealot” or “enthusiast.” [181]

In the case of Simon, scholars are divided over whether it is best to translate ζηλωτή̑ (zēlōtēs) with a lower-case z (“zealot”) or with a capital Z (“Zealot”). On the one hand, the commonly held view until modern times has been that the Zealots were one of four parties in Judaism in the first century—Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. It was claimed that the Zealot party originated in ad 6 when Judas of Galilee joined the Pharisee Zadok in resistance to Roman rule because of the census under Quirinius.182 According to this common view Simon had been a member of the Zealot party before becoming one of the Twelve. [183]

On the other hand, a growing consensus of modern writers argues that the name Zealot was not used to describe a Jewish sect or party earlier than ad 66. [184] Based on a careful reading of Josephus, [185] they argue that it was only at the time of the Jewish War (ad 66–70) that such a party violently opposed to the Romans came together in the city of Jerusalem. If this understanding of the evidence is correct (and I think that it is) then one of two conclusions about Simon’s life before he met Jesus follows. Either the NT writers mean no more than that he was zealous of the Law, as were some early Christians (Acts 21:20) and Paul before his conversion (Acts 22:3), or else—and I think this is the more likely theory—he was one of a number of individual “zealots,” i.e., private individuals who were characterized by intense nationalism, hatred of Rome, and a willingness to take the law into their own hands. [186]

The choice of Simon, says Bruce, is an illustration of Christ’s willingness to disregard conventional wisdom. A zealot among his apostles could easily make Jesus the object of political suspicion. Jesus was willing to take the risk. He expected to gain disciples from every class of men, including the dangerous and the despised, and such people would be represented among the twelve. [187]

According to legend, Simon went with Jude to Persia where two magicians named Zaroës and Arfaxat, whom Matthew had driven out of Ethiopia, opposed them. [188] They visited Babylon where many were converted to Christianity. The two traveled throughout Persia and finally arrived in Suanir, where they were martyred. Barclay classifies as “pious fiction” their many adventures involving magicians, fierce tigers, and many miracles. [189]

Judas Iscariot

The last name in each list of the apostles is that of Judas Iscariot (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). Of this apostle Tasker wrote, “His sin has stamped the word with such evil significance that it has become the class-name of perfidious friends, who are ‘no better than Judases.’” [190] The name Judas ( ᾿Ιούδα̑) is the Greek form of the Hebrew Judah (יַהוּדָה, yehûdāh), which in Genesis 29:35 is derived from the verb (יָדָה, yādāh) [191] meaning “to praise,” and means “one who is the subject of praise” (Gen. 49:8). [192] This meaning, suggests Tasker, “suggests a striking paradox when used of one whose name became a synonym for shame.” [193] The name Iscariot ( ᾿Ισκαριώτη̑, Iskariōtēs), is commonly understood to mean “man of Kerioth” (אִישׁ קְרִיּוֹת, îs̆ Qerîyyôt), [194] Kerioth being a town in the south of Judah. [195] That Judas was a Keriothite marks him out as the one apostle who was not a Galilean.

Nothing is known of Judas’s early life other than his father was called Simon Iscariot (John 6:71). The Synoptic Gospels tell us nothing of his early ministry; it is John who provides what little we do know. He writes, “Jesus knew from the beginning...who it was that would betray Him” (John 6:64). [196] At the moment he called Judas to be an apostle, [197] “Jesus discerned the thoughts and intents of his unfaithful apostle and knew that ‘the germ of the traitor-spirit was already in the heart of Judas.’” [198] Jesus added, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” John explains that at the beginning Jesus detected an evil, diabolic purpose that would lead Judas to betray him (John 6:70–71).

John also records an incident from Passion Week that reveals something more about Judas’s character. Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with costly perfume, and Judas objected, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” John then added his devastating indictment, “Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it” (John 12:5–6).

In their lists of the twelve apostles, Matthew and Mark add to Judas’s name the phrase, “the one who betrayed him” (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19). [199] Luke has a variation of the phrase with “who became a traitor” (Luke 6:16). [200] The Synoptic Gospels all record Judas’s bargain with the chief priests to hand Jesus over to them for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Ex. 21:32). [201]

Significantly they all note that he was “one of the twelve” (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3). This expression is found only here in their writings, and it is used only of Judas. “It marks the mingled sorrow and indignation of the Evangelists, that within that select circle there could be a single treacherous heart.” [202]

There have been a number of attempts to explain the actions of Judas in betraying his Master. [203] On one extreme is the view that he was the devil incarnate. On the other hand is the view that Judas was a nationalist who believed that Jesus would truly inaugurate the kingdom of God. He was concerned that Jesus was too slow to act, so he decided to force his hand by delivering him over to the Jewish hierarchy. His intent was not to see Jesus crucified but rather to see him unleash his power. [204] The second of these views is inconsistent with Jesus’ stern words (“son of perdition”) in John 17:12. Neither of the views finds any support in Scripture. Nor is there support for the highly speculative and revisionist view that Judas was an invention of the anti-Semitic impulses of the early church. [205]

The answer of the Gospels to the question, “Why?” is that Judas was a treacherous and greedy man (John 6:70; 12:5–6). Further, he was a man who allowed himself to be motivated by Satan. Luke says, “Satan entered him” (22:3). [206] In his account of the Last Supper, John uses the same phrase: “After the morsel, Satan then entered into him” (John 13:27). [207] John does not suggest that it was only at that moment that the hateful idea of betrayal entered Judas’s mind. He prefaced his description of the Supper with the comment, “During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him” (13:2). Tasker suggests that Luke described “the genesis” of Satan’s attack on Judas, and John described “the consummation.” [208] In any case, Judas, a man of treacherous and covetous character, acted upon the motivation of the devil, who, the Lord Jesus said, is “a murderer...and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

After the betrayal, when Judas saw that Jesus had been condemned to death, he was filled with remorse. He threw the pieces of silver into the temple and hanged himself. The chief priests, not wanting to put contaminated money into the temple treasury, used the money to buy a Potter’s Field (Matt. 27:1–7). [209] Luke describes Judas’s end in Acts 1:18, “Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.” There is no need to conclude that between Matthew and Acts there is an “apparent contradiction” [210] between two “different legends” [211] of Judas’s death. Both accounts agree that Judas’s money was used to buy a piece of land. Furthermore, the death scene is easily harmonized.

Having hanged himself, Judas was not found for some time. His visceral organs degenerated, and his abdomen swelled. Swelling up, his abdomen burst, and his intestines gushed out. [212]

Tasker cites two damning verdicts on Judas. Lavater said, “Judas acted like Satan, but like a Satan who had it in him to be an apostle.” Pressensé added, “No man could be more akin to a devil than a perverted apostle.” [213] On a practical note, Broadus wrote, “It is some relief to our distress when we see men in high places of Christian usefulness at the present day falling utterly away, to remember that it was so at the beginning, even among our Lord’s chosen Twelve.” [214]

Mathias

Jesus chose twelve apostles (Mark 3:16; Luke 6:13), but because of the defection of Judas there were only eleven at the time of the ascension (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 1:26). Because of the abiding relationship between the twelve apostles and the nation of Israel, it was imperative that someone else be chosen to occupy the office of Judas (Acts 1:20). Two men were put forward as possible successors of the apostate apostle, “Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias” [215] (v. 23). Luke describes the outcome: “They drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles” (v. 26). [216] Mathias, then, is the thirteenth name on our list. He was added to “the eleven” and became one of “the Twelve.”

Nothing historical about Matthias is known outside of the account in Acts 1:21–26. Yet what little is known is important because the incident in Acts 1 contributes to our understanding of the qualifications for membership in the apostolate. [217] First, an apostle must be of Messiah’s nation. Peter’s statement that an apostle had to have been one of Jesus’ followers from the very beginning requires this (Acts 1:21–22). Early in their ministry the disciples went only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:1–6). This requirement is also suggested by the eschatological role of the apostles in the future millennial kingdom (Matt. 19:28). Second, an apostle must have seen the Lord Jesus, being an eyewitness of his doings and an ear-witness of his sayings. Third, an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. Fourth, an apostle must have received his call and commission directly from Christ. This was true of “the eleven,” and it was true of Matthias. The other apostles were convinced that the Lord Jesus would unerringly declare his choice of the man to succeed Judas—and he did (vv. 24–26).

Other information about Matthias is the stuff of legend and tradition. Eusebius says that he had been one of the seventy sent out by Jesus to preach in the cities (Luke 10:1). [218] He also says that Matthias was the eighth of fifteen bishops who served the Jerusalem church before the conquest of that city by the Romans in ad 70. [219] When Eusebius lists the canonical books of the NT, he rejects the now lost Gospel of Matthias as “the fiction of heretics.” The character and style of that and other fictional gospels, he wrote, “is at variance with apostolic usage,” and the teachings in them is “completely out of accord with true orthodoxy.” [220] Clement of Alexandria was aware of a work entitled the Traditions of Matthias, which is possibly the same work under a slightly different title. It was highly valued by the Gnostic theologian, Basilides, and the work was probably written by Gnostics. [221]

The Quality of the Apostles

Such were the men who are today celebrated by Christians as “the glorious company of the apostles.” From our perspective the praise is merited, but on the day of their appointment they had no worldly glory at all. None of them were socially prominent men drawn from religious, social, political, or military elites of the day. They were ordinary men, drawn from middle-income professions. [222] In subsequent years affluent and learned men would identify with Christ (e.g., Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Saul of Tarsus), but in the beginning no such men were ready to follow him. Instead, Jesus “was obliged to be content with” fishermen, tax collectors, and zealots for apostles. [223]

This has tremendous application for the work of the Lord in the local church. Some are afraid to begin training leaders because none of the young men available is a Spurgeon, a Wesley, a Luther, or—to cite contemporary examples—a Billy Graham, a Chuck Swindoll, a John MacArthur, a John Stott, a John Piper, or a J. I. Packer. The lesson, of course, is that young men are not to be despised for their youth, lack of learning, and social roughness. Rather, they are to be trained in light of what Christ through his Holy Spirit can make them.

Conclusion

The Theological Importance of the Appointment of the Twelve

The appointment of the Twelve is theologically significant both for what it reveals about the person of Christ and for what it implies and anticipates about the mission of the apostles. First, regarding the person of Christ, the account illustrates the true humanity of Jesus. His night-long vigil of prayer portrays him as a devout man seeking the guidance of his God.

Second, the account of the selection of the apostles looks on to the future history of the Christian community. “The appointment of the Twelve,” says William Lane, “marks the formation of the messianic fellowship and anticipates the extension of Jesus’ mission through them.” [224] “Their relationship to Jesus explains their existence and their authority.” [225] Initially their mission was to preach the good news of the kingdom in the Galilean villages (Mark 6:7–13).

More significant was the apostolic mission after the resurrection. They gave the Word of God to the new community, the church; in fact, they established the body of normative teaching for the church in the new age. Their teaching was the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20) and the standard by which all subsequent teaching would be measured. The church of Jesus Christ was and is to be an apostolic church.

Furthermore, the number twelve “has a clear redemptive-historical significance.” [226] It looks back on the prior history of the people of God as the twelve tribes of OT history. The number twelve also looks forward to the millennial age and the earthly goal of redemptive history when Jesus Christ will sit upon the throne of David and his twelve apostles will also sit on thrones ruling over the re-gathered tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 1:32–33; 22:30; Rev. 20:4–6). The number twelve is a promise that God has not forgotten his ancient people Israel and will one day restore and save them (Rom. 11:25–29).

The Practical Significance of the Appointment of the Twelve

There are a number of practical implications to the account of the appointment of the twelve apostles. First, as Barclay observes, “it is significant that Christianity began with a group. The Christian faith is something which from the beginning had to be discovered and lived out in a fellowship.” Unlike the Pharisees (“separated ones”) who separated people from the community, the essence of Christianity is to bind people together and give them the task of living with and serving each other. [227]

Second, even God’s anointed Servant (Messiah) could not carry out his work alone. He needed to delegate responsibilities to others. So it is in the church today. “We need to share our ministry, to impart our lives to others. Collegial relationships defuse the pressure.” [228]

Third, the Christian church is an apostolic fellowship. It is founded on the teaching, which the risen Christ gave to the apostles, and Christians are called to live their lives in glad submission to that teaching (Acts 2:42; 2 Pet. 3:2). In the troubled seas of postmodern times, Christian believers have a sure anchor in the revelation given through Christ’s inspired apostles (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

Fourth, Mark’s note that Jesus “summoned” and “appointed” the Twelve is “a statement of election” (3:13, 16) akin to Paul’s expression “apostle by God’s call” (Rom. 1:1). While there are no apostles today, believers should exercise their spiritual gifts with the same sense of divine calling. Many who claim to minister in the name of Jesus Christ today have never been called by him to the task. They are like the false prophets of Jeremiah’s time of whom the Lord said, “I did not send these prophets, but they ran. I did not speak to them, but they prophesied” (Jer. 23:21). I am reminded of the unlettered country preacher who was, in spite of his “lack of learnin’,” well grounded in the Word. After listening to a brash young preacher, very sure of himself, who displayed very little evidence of the power of God in his preaching, he confronted him by saying, “Was you sent, or did you just went?” [229]

Fifth, although the risen Christ through his Holy Spirit gives gifts and gifted men to his church (1 Cor. 12:4–7; Eph. 4:11–12), he uses human means to train and prepare such gifted people. For three years in Palestine Jesus ran a traveling Bible College with twelve students. After the Lord’s ascension the apostles continued his practice of having mature believers mentor and train younger believers (2 Tim. 2:1–2). This needs to be stressed—especially in churches where mystically minded men disparage training programs. The Lord Jesus Christ trained him men to serve. Healthy churches have always done the same.

Sixth, Jesus demonstrated that Christian mentors/teachers often work with men who know little theology and have no experience in methods of evangelism and teaching. Divinely called, adequately trained, and spiritually equipped, however, a man or woman can go on to wonderfully serve the Lord. Jesus Christ “does not despise humble instruments.” [230]

Seventh, Christ uses every kind of individual. Although they had differences in character, temperament, life experiences, occupational training, and family experiences, all these men were utilized by him. [231]

Eighth, natural relationships and friendship ties can be made “channels of higher purpose and fuller blessing.” Among the Twelve there were two or three sets of brothers (Peter and Andrew, James and John, possibly Matthew and James), four were in the same business (Peter and Andrew [Matt. 4:18]; James and John [John 1:19–20]), and several were friends. “Christ is...ready to honor ties of kinship and friendship when they exist among His servants.” [232]

Finally, the Lord Jesus left a pattern to be followed when he devoted an entire night to prayer over the selection of his apostles. There is important guidance here for pressured people, says Kent Hughes, whether in the work of the Lord or in our ordinary, everyday pursuits. First, we all need times of solitude and silence. We need to get apart with God—and with those closest to us. Second, we need to pray. Without him we can do nothing. What we are spiritually both in our daily work and in our efforts for him “depends on what we receive from Him.” [233]

Notes

1. This is the tenth in a series of articles on the life of Christ.
2. William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, DSB (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 73.
3. “The choosing of the Twelve is the first constitutive act accomplished by Jesus Christ. It is the first measure, and substantially (with the sacraments) the only measure, of organization, which He ever took. It sufficed Him, since the college of the Twelve, once constituted, was in its turn to take what further measures might be required when the time came for them.” F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2 vols., trans. E. W. Shalders (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879), 1:296.
4. Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 136.
5. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 136.
6. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 137.
7. Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, 74.
8. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 137.
9. Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Religious Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 52.
10. Søren Kierkegaard, On Authority and Revelation, trans. Walter Lowrie (New York: Harper, 1966), 104.
11. James Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ (1880; 29th ed., Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1949), 77; James S. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ (New York: Abingdon, n.d.), 58.
12. Mark and Luke set the appointment of the Twelve within a chronological framework. Matthew, however, was more thematic and wanted to handle one theme at a time. “From 4:23 on [Matthew] wants Jesus alone to be in the spotlight. Only after reciting Jesus’ words and deeds (chapters 5–9) do the disciples really come into the picture.” W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991–97), 2:151. Bruce, following Luke’s chronology, argues that the twelve were called just before the Sermon on the Mount and a considerable time before they were sent out on their preaching and healing mission. Cf. Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 3d ed. (1883; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 30–32; Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 63–64.
13. Hendriksen argues that the definite article (“the mountain,” not “a mountain”) indicates that a well-known mountain is meant. He suggests the Horns of Hattin, just west of the Sea of Galilee and southwest of Capernaum—so named because its two peaks resemble two horns from a distance. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, NTC (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1978), 326.
14. Cf. D. E. Nineham, Saint Mark, PGC (Baltimore: Penguin, 1963), 114. On the question of the theological significance of mountains in the OT and in the Gospels, cf. Werner Foerster, “ὄρο̑,” TDNT 5 (1967): 479-86.
15. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 132. Guelich, on the other hand, views the mountain setting as no more than the geographical locale. Foerster, also, suggests that to a Palestinian so used to mountainous terrain, the observation that Jesus went up into the mountain “could hardly mean more than that he went up into the mountains.” Cf. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 157; Foerster, “ὄρο̑,” 5:485.
16. The unusual idiom “τῇ προσευχῇ τοῢ θεοῢ” (lit., “prayer of God”) is an objective genitive meaning “prayer to God.” The objective genitive is unusual here because it follows an intransitive verbal noun. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 117, n. 126.
17. The construction is a periphrastic, the imperfect occurring with the present participle. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 647.
18. Διανυκτερεύω appears here only in the NT, but it is found in the LXX and later Greek writers. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “διανυκτερεύω,” 234.
19. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., vol. 2: Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 83.
20. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:299.
21. Cf. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 132.
22. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:299.
23. Cf. John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 269.
24. Dennis J. Hester, ed., The Vance Havner Quote Book (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 188.
25. R. Kent Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, 2 vols. (Westchester: Crossway, 1989), 1:85.
26. BDAG, s.v. “μαθητή̑,” 609.
27. In the Gospels the word μαθητή̑ is used in at least two ways: (1) of the large group who had an interest in Jesus as a teacher and worker of miracles, and (2) of the smaller group who severed certain ties to be with him and learn of him. In Acts it is used of: (1) believers (6:1; 21:16) and (2) converts to Christianity (14:21). Cf. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 148; K. H. Rengstorf, “μαθητή̑,” TDNT 4 (1967): 444-60; Hans Kvalbein, “Go Therefore and Make Disciples...The Concept of Discipleship in the New Testament,” Themelios 13 (Jan., 1988): 48-53.
28. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 540.
29. Luke (6:13) uses the aorist middle participle of ἐκλέγω (ἐκλεξάμενο̑).
30. Avoth 1.6 in Mishnayoth, 7 vols., vol. 4: Order Nezikin, ed. Philip Blackman (New York: Judaica, 1963), 492.
31. Rengstorf, “μαθητή̑,”434, 444. “Whereas in Rabbinic circles and in Greek philosophical schools a man made a voluntary decision to join the ‘school’ of his master and so became a disciple, with Jesus it was his call that was decisive (Luke 5:1–11; cf. Matt. 5:18ff.). Jesus seized the initiative and called men into discipleship (Mark 1:17; 2:14; Luke 9:59-62; John 1:43).” D. Müller, “Disciple,” NIDNTT, 1:488.
32. It is true that in the early days of his activity many flocked to him. However, at a certain point in time the large group of followers broke up because of their offense at his message (John 6:60–66). This confirms “that the composition of the circle of disciple[s] depends, not on the disciples, but on Jesus.” Cf. Rengstorf, “μαθητή̑,” 4:444–45.
33. Cf. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:296; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 327; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 157, 158; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 310, 315. Bruce is typical of amillennial scholars when he speaks of the disciples’ dream of a literal restoration of Israel as a “fond delusive hope” (The Training of the Twelve, 33).
34. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:151.
35. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 541.
36. “What seems virtually certain is that the conception of ‘the twelve’ goes back to Jesus himself.... His use of the conception ‘twelve’ points toward his understanding of his own mission. He was engaged in a task which would include the restoration of Israel” (E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 106).
37. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 541. Guelich writes that the number twelve is “a sign of the expected eschatological restoration of all God’s people” (Mark 1–8:26, 158). It would be more biblical to say that it is a sign of the expected eschatological restoration of Israel.
38. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:151.
39. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:159.
40. As Swete notes, in verse 16 Mark adds the article to “twelve,” i.e., “and so He created the Twelve.” Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (3d ed., London: Macmillan, 1913), 59.
41. Schmithals and others have argued that the appointment of the Twelve was invented by the post-Easter church to meet problems of the day (Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely [Nashville: Abingdon, 1969], 255–65). Scholars generally reject this view for these reasons: (1) The existence of a group of twelve apostles within a generation of Christ’s death is beyond doubt (1 Cor. 15:5). There is no other way to account for it other than by its appointment by Jesus. (2) The reason for there being only twelve is difficult to explain by Schmithals in that there was a greater number of disciples during Jesus’ ministry and a greater number who had seen the risen Lord. (3) Schmithals’ theory founders on the existence of Judas Iscariot in the list of twelve. The early church would not have invented anything so potentially offensive. (4) The reference to “the Eleven” (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 1:26) and the choice of Matthias (Acts 1:15–26) is incomprehensible if Jesus had not actually appointed the Twelve. Cf. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “δώδεκα,” TDNT, 2 (1964): 325-26; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:151–52; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, CGTC (3d ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 127; Robert W. Herron, Jr., “The Origin of the New Testament Apostolate,” WTJ 45 (1983): 101-31.
42. Cf. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 157–58.
43. The Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies includes the phrase in brackets and gives the inclusion a “C” rating. Metzger says that the Committee was of the opinion that the external evidence was too strong in favor of these words to warrant their exclusion (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], 69). Cf. also Christopher W. Skinner, “‘Whom He Also Named Apostles’: A Textual Problem in Mark 3:14, ” BibSac 161 (July, 2004): 322-29.
44. Cf. Robert Duncan Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament,” BibSac 134 (April, 1977): 131-43. For a full discussion, cf. the celebrated essay by K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολο̑,” TDNT 1 (1964): 398-443.
45. J. Norval Geldenhuys, Supreme Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 51. Harnack wrote, “They were authoritative officials who collected contributions from the Diaspora for the temple and kept the [communities] in touch with Jerusalem and with each other.” Adolf von Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 2 vols., trans. James Moffatt (1904–5; reprint ed., New York: Books for Libraries, 1972), 1:409.
46. Berachoth 5.5 in Mishnayoth, 7 vols., vol. 1: Order Zeraim, ed. Philip Blackman (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1983), 55. Blackman’s translation reads, “the representative of a person is like to himself.”
47. A “minister plenipotentiary” may be defined as a person, “especially a diplomatic agent, invested with full power or authority to transact business on behalf of another.” Cf. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “plenipotentiary,” 1105. Cf. Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate,” 133.
48. Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate,” 133.
49. Keener notes that “in the case of a kingdom ‘sending’ representatives it applied particularly to ambassadors” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 313). He cites Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 40.1.1.
50. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 57.
51. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Messiah’s Year of Public Favor (3),” BBB (1987): 5.
52. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 30.
53. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 57–58.
54. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 143.
55. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 143–47.
56. “The exorcist in our passage was not an imposter, but a believer; yet not one belonging to the constant followers of Jesus.... Thus sparks, from which flamed forth the power of a higher life, had fallen and kindled beyond the circles of disciples, and Jesus desires to see the results unchecked.” H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, trans. R. E. Wallis (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 118–19.
57. Other women who supported Jesus’ work financially are mentioned in Luke 8:2–3.
58. B. B. Warfield, “Children,” DCG, 1:303.
59. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 148.
60. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 148.
61. BDAG, s.v. “κηρύσσω,” 543. Cf. Ezra P. Gould, The Gospel According to St. Mark, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 57.
62. On the evidential significance of the apostolic miracles, cf. David J. MacLeod, “Surprised by the Power of the Spirit,” EmJ 10 (Summer, 2001): 118-25.
63. Müller, following Rengstorf, argues that the apostolate was originally not an office but a commission. Initially, he says, the authorization was limited in time and space, like that of a Jewish s̄alîah. After Jesus’ resurrection, however, the commission was not only renewed but modified. The disciples were then called to “an authoritative position (i) as Spirit-empowered witnesses of the resurrection, (ii) for their whole life, (iii) with a missionary responsibility.” It is only after Easter, he concludes, that “the apostolate received the character of an office.” D. Müller, “Apostle,” NIDNTT, 1:131; Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολο̑,” 427.
64. “The act of the risen Lord, however, was the renewal of the commission of the disciples in their definitive institution as ἀπόστολοι.” Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολο̑,” 430.
65. “Personal commissioning by [the Lord] seems to have been the only basis of the apostolate.” Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολο̑,” 431.
66. The role of the apostles as witnesses to the fact of Jesus’ resurrection is stressed in their commissioning (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8), in the account of the choice to Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:21–22), and in the sermons of Peter (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:41). Cf. Andrew C. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177.
67. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 128.
68. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Peace! An Exposition of John 14:25–31, ” EmJ 4 (Summer, 1995): 23.
69. Erling G. Olson, Walks With Our Lord Through John’s Gospel, 2 vols. (2d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 413–14.
70. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Spirit and Believers: His Teaching Ministry, An Exposition of John 16:12–15,” EmJ 6 (Summer, 1997): 99.
71. J. Stafford Wright, “The Canon of Scripture,” EvQ 19 (1947): 104.
72. Johnson, “The Spirit and Believers,” 99.
73. As Bruce notes, we should not exaggerate or idealize the extent of their authority. Among themselves there was—as we might expect—the sorting out of theological questions. Paul did not want the authority of the Jerusalem apostles imposed by their emissaries on his Gentile churches and rebuked Peter for bowing to their pressure (Gal. 2:11–14). It required a conference in Jerusalem to determine the very nature of the Gentile mission (Acts 15:1–29). The apostles had their opponents; in Asia Phygellus and Hermogenes led a revolt against Paul (2 Tim. 1:15). There were others in his day who questioned his apostolic status and did their best to undermine his authority, even in his own mission field (cf. Phil. 1:15–17; 2 Cor. 11). And Diotrephes, three decades later, refused to receive the delegates sent by John (3 John 9). Cf. F. F. Bruce, “Lessons from the Early Church,” in In God’s Community, eds. David J. Ellis and W. Ward Gasque (Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1979), 161.
74. As far as the apostle Paul is concerned, the Lord’s authority was embodied in and mediated by two means, “by word of mouth or by letter” [2 Thess. 2:15]: (1) his personal presence and the authority he claims as Christ’s delegate (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 13:1), and (2) his letters, which were extensions of his pastoral and teaching ministry (1 Cor. 5:5; Col. 2:5). Cf. Ralph P. Martin, “Authority in the Light of the Apostolate, Tradition and the Canon,” EvQ 40 (April, 1968): 75.
75. Herman Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and its Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 20.
76. Much is sometimes made of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7 (esp. vv. 10, 22, 25, 40), as if they suggested that the apostle wrote as ordinary believers would, without divine authority. A closer examination of his words indicate, however, that Paul speaks with apostolic authority. Where he can quote words that Jesus spoke on earth, he does. Where he does not have statements of Christ to support his argument, he still speaks and can affirm, “And thus I direct in all the churches” (v. 17) and can claim (with some irony directed against the superspiritual ascetics of Corinth) “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (v. 40). Cf. Geldenhuys, Supreme Authority, 82–3.
77. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:56.
78. “In view of the following context, ‘regeneration’ probably refers to Israel’s renewal when God fully establishes His kingdom on earth.” Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 392.
79. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1740. Others place the scene in the new earth. Plummer wrote, “‘The regeneration’ means the new Genesis, the creating of a new heaven and a new earth.” Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1915; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 271.
80. Commentators have differed over the nature of the disciples activity of “judging” (κρίνοντε̑) the tribes. There are two views: (1) The activity is a one-time judgment in which unbelieving Israel is condemned [e.g., D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 426]. (2) The verb κρίνω has a broader semantic range than simply judgment and here suggests the more positive notions of authority and leadership over the restored nation. “In the OT κρίνειν often means ‘govern’ (e.g. Ps. 9:4, 8).” Cf. Alan Hugh M’Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 282. “It is better to hold,” conclude Davies and Allison, “that for Matthew... κρίνοντες had the range of the Hebrew šāp̄at̠̣ [cf. BDB, s.v. “שָׁפַט,” 1047–49]. The following observations favor the second view. First, there is no parallel in the OT to the idea that Israel will be gathered solely to be condemned. There are indications, of course, that there will be a purging of Israel to remove the ungodly from the nation (Ezek. 20:36–38). The greater emphasis of the OT, however, is upon Israel’s regathering as proof of God’s power and faithfulness (Isa. 11:11; Jer. 30:10–11; Hos. 3:4–5; Amos 9:14–15). Second, and more to the point, Matthew, it is generally agreed, has been influenced by Daniel 7:9–27, but in that OT text the saints take possession of the kingdom—they are not condemned and barred from it. Third, in the parallel passage (Luke 22:28–30), it is evident that Luke thought in terms of the disciples’ ruling. Fourth, in Matthew 20:20–21 the mother of James and John spoke of her son’s role in the kingdom in terms of ruling (cf. 20:25). Matthew 2:6 and 8:11–12 support the Jewish expectation of the restoration of Israel, not its condemnation. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:56.
81. “Neither in Jesus’ intention nor in Matthew’s does ‘Israel’ mean the church (cf. the distinction maintained in 8:11, 12; 21:43; 22:7; 23:32–36; 27:25).” Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 393.
82. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 58. Cremer referred to the apostles as the “members of parliament and foundation laying witnesses” of Christ. Cf. Hermann Cremer, “ἀποστέλλω,” “ἀπόστολο̑,” Biblisch-Theologisches Wórterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Grázitát, ed. Julius Kögel (10th ed., 1915), 1019, quoted by Geldenhuys, Supreme Authority, 54, n. 2.
83. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” 173.
84. There are a number of fine homiletical works on the twelve apostles. I would recommend J. D. Jones, The Glorious Company of the Apostles: Being Studies in the Characters of the Twelve (London: James Clarke, 1904; reprint ed. [The Apostles of Jesus], Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992); William Barclay, The Master’s Men (New York: Abingdon, 1959); and John MacArthur, Twelve Ordinary Men (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2002).
85. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 55, 56.
86. As Stewart notes (The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 55), Psalm 110 was applied to Jesus by himself (Matt. 22:43–45) and the early church (Acts 2:34–35; Heb. 1:13).
87. In John 21:5 Moffatt translates παιδία, as “lads.” James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 173.
88. ODCC, s.v. “Peter,” 1068.
89. Cf. F. F. Bruce, “How Old Were the Apostles?” Interest (Feb. 1989): 10.
90. Bruce, “How Old Were the Apostles?” 10–11.
91. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 55.
92. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 56.
93. Bruce, “How Old Were the Apostles?” 10–11.
94. Bruce, “How Old Were the Apostles?” 11.
95. Bruce, “How Old Were the Apostles?” 11.
96. Cf. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολο̑,” 431.
97. Johnson, “The Messiah’s Year of Public Favor (3),” 3. Keener suggests that Jesus’ choice of males was solely for cultural reasons, “for effectiveness in reaching Israel” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 311).
98. Johnson, “The Messiah’s Year of Public Favor (3),” 3.
99. Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 239.
100. Stewart, The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, 56; Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 33.
101. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 35.
102. J. D. Jones, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Religious Tract Society, 1914; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1992), 67.
103. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 35–36.
104. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:301.
105. Carson, “Matthew,” 237.
106. Matthew and Luke keep Andrew in second place to preserve the order suggested by sibling relationships. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 237.
107. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 36.
108. BDAG, s.v. “πρῶτο̑,” 894; cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:154.
109. John Albert Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2 vols., trans. Carlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 1:155.
110. There is no essential difference in meaning between πέτρο̑ and πέτρα. The earlier Greek distinction between πέτρο̑ (detached stone) and πέτρα (massive live rock) was largely confined to poetry. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 368; Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson (rev. ed., London: SCM, 1962), 20–21. Noting that proper names are not usually translated, Cullmann argued that Peter was not a proper name but a descriptive title, “Rock” (21–22).
111. On “The Names of St. Peter,” cf. F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1898), 151–53.
112. Westcott asserted that John 1:42 contains the promise of the name “Cephas,” while in Matthew 16:18 the promise receives its fulfillment. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:51. Carson rejects the idea that Matthew thought the naming took place at the time of Peter’s great confession in Matthew 16:18. On that occasion, he suggests, “Jesus merely made a pun on the name” (“Matthew,” 367). He argues that the assignation of the name “Peter” occurred at the very outset of Jesus’ ministry (i.e., at the event recorded in John 1:42). Cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 156.
113. Until Mark 3:16 the evangelist uses the name “Simon.” Following the appointment of the Twelve, Mark regularly uses “Peter” (nineteen times with one exception, 14:37). Likewise Luke almost always speaks of him as Peter after the appointment of the apostles in 6:14 (exceptions are 22:31 and 24:34). Cf. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 160; Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC (5th ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 172.
114. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 59. Cullmann brings unnecessary confusion into the discussion when he suggests that Jesus formally named Peter on three different occasions, viz., John 1:42; Mark 3:16; Matt. 16:18 (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 182–83).
115. Taylor suggests that the name “Peter” described Simon’s character, not his office (Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark [2d ed., London: Macmillan, 1966], 231). This is unlikely, “for rock-like firmness is not a feature of the NT picture of Simon Peter.” The name denotes his role as leader and spokesman of the Twelve during Jesus’ earthly ministry and, following Pentecost, his role as leader in the early church. He is historically at its beginning a foundation rock of the church. Why he was chosen for this task is “a mystery of divine election” (Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 130). Westcott concluded, “The title [Κηφᾶ̑] appears to mark not so much the natural character of the apostle as the spiritual office to which he was called” (The Gospel According to St. John, 1:51). One must remember, however, that “Peter was not a pope in the medieval or even modern sense” (Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word, 1987), 369). Peter “is primus inter pares (‘first among equals’); and on the foundation of such men (Eph. 2:20), Jesus built his church” (Carson, “Matthew,” 368). Having said that the term speaks more of Peter’s office than his natural character, one must add that Peter did become a man of unflinching strength. He epitomized Carson’s observation of Jesus’ call of the apostles. Jesus called them and made them what he called them to be (The Gospel According to John, 156).
116. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 134.
117. A convenient collection of this legendary material, along with documentation of primary sources, is to be found in Barclay, The Master’s Men.
118. Eusebius, Church History 3.1, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:132; The Acts of Peter 35–38, in The Apocryphal New Testament, ed. J. K. Elliott (rev. ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 423–26.
119. The name James ( ᾿Ιάκωβο̑) is derived from “Jacob” ( ᾿Ιακώβ), a name rich with OT associations. The etymology of the name (“supplanter”) sheds no light on the career of James, a man who served without jealousy in the shadow of his brother John. Cf. TGLNT, s.v. “ ᾿Ιάκωβο̑,” 295; Barclay, The Master’s Men, 103.
120. That James was the older brother is generally assumed because he is usually mentioned first.
121. On the family members of Jesus mentioned in the NT, cf. David J. MacLeod, “The ‘Hidden Years’ of Jesus,” EmJ 8 (Winter, 1999): 156-58.
122. Matthew and Luke omit the nickname. For a list of the possible Hebrew and Aramaic words from which βοανηργέ̑ may have been derived, cf. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 130–31. For fuller discussion, cf. John T. Rook, “‘Boanerges, Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17),” JBL 100 (March, 1981): 94-95.
123. For the more positive explanation of the name, cf. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 60; Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 131.
124. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 100. Eusebius says that James was beheaded, and he adds a story from Clement of Alexandria that one of his guards, hearing his witness, became a believer and was himself beheaded with James (Church History 2.1.4; 2.9.2–4, in NPNF, 2d Series, 104, 110–11). For the legendary encounters of James with the magicians Hermogenes and Philetus, cf. The Apostolic History of Abdias 4.1-9, in The Apocryphal New Testament, trans. Montague Rhodes James (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), 462–64. For Isidore of Seville’s account of James’s mission to Spain, cf. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 102–3. The early martyrdom of James makes such a mission impossible. James is, nevertheless, the patron saint of Spain.
125. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.3, in ANF, 1:559–60. Cf. Eusebius, Church History 3.18.1–3 (148); Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 9, in NPNF, 2d Series, 3:364.
126. Tertullian records the legend that before going into exile on Patmos, John visited Rome. There he was plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he emerged unharmed. Cf. On Prescription Against Heretics 36, in ANF, 3:260.
127. Augustine was not immune to legendary nonsense and gave some credence to reports that John was not dead but only sleeping in his tomb in Ephesus. His evidence was the promise of John 21:22 and the testimony of witnesses that movement of the dust over the tomb was caused by breath of the sleeper within. Cf. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 124.2, in NPNF 1st Series, 7:447–48.
128. Clement tells the story of John’s concern for a young man who departed from the faith and organized a robber band. Upon hearing of his defection, John went to the robber’s hideout where he was captured. When led to the criminal, John said, “Child, do not fear. You have still hopes of life. I myself will give account to Christ for you. If need be, I will willingly undergo your penalty of death, as the Lord did for us.” After praying with the man, he was restored to faith in the Lord. The story does have legendary and anachronistic elements (e.g., the existence of monarchial bishops in the first century), but some believe the core story is true. Cf. Clement, The Rich Man’s Salvation 42, in Clement of Alexandria, LCL, trans. G. W. Butterworth (New York: Putnam’s, 1919), 356–65. It is to John Cassian that we owe an account of John’s tame partridge. A philosopher dressed as a hunter asked the apostle why he wasted his time stroking a partridge. John asked him, “What is it that you are carrying in your hand?” the apostle asked. “A bow,” the man replied. “And why,” John asked, “do you not carry it everywhere [strung and] bent?” The man replied, “It would not do, for the force of its stiffness would be relaxed by its being continually bent, and it would be lessened and destroyed, and when the time came for it to send stouter arrows after some beast, its stiffness would be lost by the excessive and continuous strain, and it would be impossible for the more powerful bolts to be shot.” “And, my lad,” said John, “do not let this slight and short relaxation of my mind disturb you, as unless it sometimes relieved and relaxed the rigor of its purpose by some recreation, the spirit would lose its spring owing to the unbroken strain, and would be unable when need required, implicitly to follow what was right.” Cf. Conferences 24.21, in NPNF, 2d Series, 11:540–41.
129. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 6.10, cited by Barclay, The Master’s Men, 38.
130. Irenaeus tells the well-known story of the aged John’s visit to a bathhouse in Ephesus. Learning that the Docetic heretic Cerinthus was also in the bathhouse, the apostle rushed out without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” Cf. Against Heresies 3.3.4, in ANF, 1:416.
131. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge: Judson, 1886), 215.
132. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 104.
133. Broadus notes that Andrew’s name is a Greek word ( ᾿Ανδρέα̑) meaning “manly” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 214; cf. TGLNT, s.v. “ ᾿Ανδρέα̑,” 43).
134. George Milligan, “Andrew,” DCG, 1:53.
135. Eusebius, Church History 3.1.
136. Milligan, “Andrew,” 53; Barclay, The Master’s Men, 45–46.
137. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 87. The New Testament distinguishes between Philip the apostle and Philip who was one of the seven (Acts 6:5; 8:5–14, 26–40; 21:8). Usually reliable authorities, Tertullian and church historian Eusebius, confused the two. Tertullian spoke of the apostle Philip as having evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch (On Baptism 18, in ANF, 3:678, n. 3), and Eusebius referred Acts 21:8 to the apostle (Church History 3.31.5–6, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:163). That there were two Philips and not one is proven by Philip’s preaching in Samaria. After he was successful, Peter and John came down from Jerusalem “in order that through the hands of an apostle the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14)” (Barclay, 88).
138. Broadus notes that Philip’s name is a Greek word (Φίλιππο̑) meaning “fond of horses” or “horse-loving” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 215; cf. LSJGL, s.v. “Φίλιππο̑,” 1935). Other than for Peter (Matt. 16:18; John 1:42) and the paradoxically named Judas Iscariot, it is unlikely that the root meanings of the apostles’ names have any bearing on their life stories. The Gospels do not tell us that Andrew was manly or that Philip actually loved horses. On the “root fallacy” in NT exegesis, cf. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 28–33.
139. M. J. Wilkins, “Disciples,” in DJG, 180.
140. John notes that Jesus asked Philip this question to test him—pressing him to rise above the inadequacy of their material resources and to realize in faith that Jesus could do what was humanly impossible. Unfortunately, Philip was so occupied with his own careful calculations that he could think of nothing else. Cf. George Milligan, “Philip,” in DCG, 2:359.
141. Milligan, “Philip,” 359; cf. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 90.
142. According to Eusebius, Philip became a church leader (one of the “great lights”) in Asia and is buried in Hierapolis (Church History 3.31, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:162). Many legends are found in the apocryphal Acts of Philip, described by M. R. James as “grotesque.” Cf. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 512–18.
143. A. Plummer, “Bartholomew,” in DCG, 1:173; cf. Wilkins, “Disciples,” 180; Barclay, The Master’s Men, 105–6. There are three reasons for this identification: (1) It is based on the conjecture that Nathanael’s surname was Bartholomew, so that his full name was Nathanael Bar-Tholami, i.e., Nathanael, son of Tholami. (2) The Synoptic Gospels never mention Nathanael, and John never mentions Bartholomew. Although Nathanael does not appear in the lists of the apostles, he is nevertheless mentioned in the company of the apostles, is spoken of as if he were an apostle (John 1:43–51; 21:1–2), and given a promise by Christ that suggests an apostolic function (John 1:50–51). If Bartholomew and Nathanael were both members of the Twelve, they must be the same person. (3) Philip and Bartholomew are always linked together in the synoptic lists of the apostles, which suggests the same kind of close relationship between Philip and Nathanael depicted in John 1:43–51.
144. Davies and Allison argue, “the reasons for this equation are not compelling” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:155).
145. To say the identification of the two men is certain goes beyond the evidence. To say it is a flimsy conjecture is to err in the opposite direction. Cf. Plummer, “Bartholomew,” 173; Carson, “Matthew,” 238.
146. Wilkins, “Disciples,” 180.
147. Some idea of the superstitious legends that grew up around the lives of the apostles in post-biblical times is this description of Bartholomew, found in the apocryphal Passion of Bartholomew: “He has black curly hair, white skin, large eyes, straight nose, his hair covers his ears, his beard long and grizzled, middle height: he wears a white colobium with purple stripe, and a white cloak with four purple ‘gems’ at the corners; for twenty-six years he has worn these and they never grow old; his shoes have lasted twenty-six years; he prays one hundred times a day and one hundred times a night; his voice is like a trumpet; angels wait on him; he is always cheerful and knows all languages” (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 520).
148. Whether or not Bartholomew actually preached in India has been a matter of some debate. See Eusebius, Church History 10.5.3 (editorial note by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace), in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:225, n. 6. Eusebius reports that when Pantaenus, a famous convert from Stoic philosophy, went from Alexandria to preach the gospel in India, he found that the people already possessed the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which had been left with them by “Bartholomew, one of the apostles.” Cf. also Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 36, in NPNF, 2d Series, 3:370.
149. The meaning of the name Matthew may be either “gift of God” or “the faithful,” depending on the etymology of the word. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 223.
150. The tax collector’s booth (τελώνιον) was “probably a simple exchange-table on which receipts were written and payments received.” Cf. Michel, “τελώνη̑,” in TDNT, 8 (1972): 97, n. 93.
151. Carson, “Matthew,” 224.
152. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 58.
153. D. A. Hagner lists three reasons why the Jews despised tax collectors: (1) They collected money for the Roman occupiers of Israel and therefore indirectly supported them. (2) They were notoriously unscrupulous, growing wealthy at the expense of their countrymen. (3) Because their work regularly brought them into contact with Gentiles, they were viewed as ritually unclean. Cf. “Tax Collector,” in ISBE, 4 (1988): 742.
154. Edersheim notes that the Talmud distinguishes two classes of tax collectors: (1) The tax gatherer in general (Gabbai) collected the regular dues which consisted of ground, income, and poll taxes. (2) The Mokhes (“oppressor”) or Mokhsa or custom-house official, who was the more notorious of the two. The Romans had an ingenuity for taxation, taxing everything that moved including axles, wheels, pack-animals, pedestrians, roads, highways, admission to markets, carriers, bridges, ships, crossing of rivers, dams, licences, etc. (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols., 3d ed. (1886; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 1:515–16). Since a major source of revenue was derived from the transportation of merchandise, tax collectors were placed upon the key ports of entry, i.e., sea ports and on the main caravan routes (Hagner, “Tax Collector,” ISBE, 4:742). The tax collector’s booth in Capernaum, where Matthew worked, “must have been particularly important, since it was situated on the major caravan route that connected Damascus with the Mediterranean...and was thus a major point of entry into Palestine from the north and the east” (D. A. Hagner, “Tax Office,” ISBE, 4 (1988): 743). On taxation in Israel in the NT era, cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), 1:372–76, 405–27.
155. Hagner writes, “Jesus’ compassion for the tax collectors is one of the startling facts of his ministry” (“Tax Collector,” 742).
156. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 63. Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1, in ANF, 1:414; Eusebius, Church History 3.24.6; 3.39.16; 5.8.2; 5.10.3, in NPNF, 2d Series, 152, 173, 222, 225.
157. Robert Horton Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 181–83.
158. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.23, in NPNF, 2d Series, 2:23.
159. “Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, and vegetables, without flesh” (Clement, The Instructor 2.1, in ANF, 2:241).
160. Clement, Miscellanies 4.9, in ANF, 2:422. The apocryphal Passion of Matthew, based on an earlier work, The Acts of Andrew and Matthias, tells the fantastic story of Jesus sending Matthew to the land of the man-eaters. Cf. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 283–99, 521–23. Elliott writes, “The historical value of these Acts is minimal” (236).
161. BDAG, s.v. “Δίδυμο̑,” 242.
162. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 47.
163. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 569.
164. E. H. Titchmarsh, “Thomas,” in DCG, 2:729.
165. Eusebius, Church History, 3.1, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:132.
166. The word used (μαρτύριον) suggests that the kind of church meant here is a memorial structure to a martyr. A. Z. Zenos, editorial note in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 4.18, in NPNF, 2d Series, 2:104, n. 1. See also Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 6.18, in NPNF, 2d Series, 2:356–57.
167. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 51–52. Perhaps the most fantastic thing said about Thomas is placed in the mouth of a great serpent who says, “I know you are the twin brother of Christ” (The Acts of Thomas 31, in The Apocryphal New Testament, 460).
168. Some have argued that Alphaeus is an alternate form of Clopas, and that James was the “James the Younger” of Mark 15:40 (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2:603, n. 1; cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 239). In the passion narratives, Mary the wife of Clopas is said to have two sons, James and Joseph (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). One might ask why, if Matthew and James were brothers, and if Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, Matthew is not listed with James and Joseph as sons of Mary, wife of Clopas? Edgar J. Goodspeed inferred that Alphaeus (Clopas) was married twice and had Matthew by his first marriage and James and Joseph by his second wife, Mary of Clopas (Matthew Apostle and Evangelist [Philadelphia: Winston, 1959], 6). Edersheim (2:603, n. 2), on the other hand, concluded that Matthew was the son of a different Alphaeus/Clopas than James. The discussion becomes even more involved when we consider the testimony of an early writer, Hegesippus, who says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the father of Jesus. Eusebius accepted this testimony and added that Clopas had another son, Simeon, who Edersheim identifies as Simon the Zealot (Church History 3.11.2, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:146.). Edersheim (2:602, n. 3) also concluded that Clopas had yet another son, namely Thaddaeus or Judas (compare Matt. 10:3 and Luke 6:16), who was also an apostle. If this is so, then seven of Jesus’ cousins were apostles (James and John, the sons of Zebedee and Salome; and James, Simon, and Judas also called Thaddaeus, the sons of Mary and Clopas)—eight if we add Matthew (John W. Wenham, “The Relatives of Jesus,” EvQ 47 [1975]: 15). Carson cautioned that while all of this is possible, “Such connections are by no means certain” (239). Cf. John J. Gunther, “The Family of Jesus,” EvQ 46 (1974); 40. Gunther concluded, “Alphaeus cannot satisfactorily be equated with Clopas.”
169. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 117. Accounts of James’ life outside of the NT are muddled due to Jerome’s assertion that James, the son of Alphaeus, was actually James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19). Jerome further argued that “brother” in this case meant “cousin” (The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary [Against Helvidius] 15, in NPNF, 2d Series, 6:341). This theory breaks down on the fact that Jesus’ “brothers” were antagonistic to his mission and followers (John 7:5). Cf. J. B. Lightfoot’s essay, “The Brethren of the Lord,” in his commentary, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 252–91. In later church tradition James the son of Alphaeus became identified with James the Less (Mark 15:40). Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 664, n. 86.
170. Jones, The Apostles of Jesus, 119, 122.
171. The KJV of Matthew 10:3 reads, “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.” Metzger expresses the opinion of most modern scholars when he concludes that the original text most likely read “Thaddaeus.” This reading has the support of early Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Egyptian witnesses. The KJV reading is most likely a conflation. Why Lebbaeus even occurs, however, makes the question a difficult one (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971], 26). Older writers, assuming the reading “Lebbaeus” was genuine, refer to Thaddaeus as “the three-named disciple,” the three names being Thaddaeus, Judas the son of James, and Lebbaeus (Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 34).
172. The name ᾿Ιούδα̑᾿Ιακώβου (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) should probably be translated, “Judas the son of James” (NASB). However, in Jude 1 the author designates himself, “Jude...a brother of James” ( ᾿Ιούδα̑…ἀδελφὸ̑ δὲ᾿Ιακώβου) and uses the term “brother.” If the author of the epistle is “Judas of James” in Luke’s apostolic lists, then the expression in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 should be translated, “Jude the brother of James.” If, on the other hand, the author of the epistle is the half-brother of Jesus and the full brother of Jesus’ half-brother James, then the reading of the epistle has no bearing on the translation of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13. Jesus’ half-brothers were not believers during his lifetime (Matt. 12:46–50; John 7:5) and were not part of the apostolic band. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 239.
173. The literal meaning of Thaddaeus was perhaps “large-hearted.” It may have been connected to the notion “child of one’s heart” or “bosom child,” hence, “beloved.” Cf. TGLNT, s.v. “θαδδαῒο̑,” 282.
174. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 216; Carson, “Matthew,” 239.
175. According to Eusebius, Thaddaeus was one of the seventy (Luke 10:1) and was eventually sent by Thomas to Edessa, a city in Northern Mesopotamia near the Euphrates (Church History 1.13.4–9, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:100–101). Eusebius offers an involved story in which Abgarus, the King of Edessa, sent a letter to Jesus asking him to come and heal his disease. After quoting the letter, Eusebius then quoted a letter from Jesus to Abgarus in which he promised to send one of his disciples after his ascension. A. C. McGiffert referred to these materials as “ecclesiastical fictions” (Editorial note in Eusebius, Church History, 100, n. 1). Barclay described Eusebius’ account as “a beautiful fiction” (The Master’s Men, 123). Broadus wrote, “The traditions concerning [Thaddaeus] are worthless” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 216; cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 239).
176. In a number of Old Latin manuscripts of Luke, Thaddaeus is called, “Judas the Zealot” (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 26). Barclay argues from this that Thaddaeus was “an intense and violent nationalist” who wanted the Lord to fulfill his desire for “world power and dominion for the chosen people” (The Master’s Men, 120). That Thaddaeus was confused over the timing of the kingdom is probable; that he was a Zealot is improbable.
177. Cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 504.
178. “This second Simon is as obscure as the first is celebrated” (Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 34).
179. The majority text of Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 does read Κανανίτη̑, which the KJV and NKJV translate, “Canaanite” (Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text [Nashville: Nelson, 1982], 29, 114). This reading is considered inferior by most Greek scholars today (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carol M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993], 22, 128). The word “Canaanite” does appear in Matthew 15:22, but it is a different Greek word (χαναναία). Simon could not have been a Canaanite, for the Canaanites were pagan Gentiles. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 239.
180. Jerome (Commentary on Matthew) accepted the reading Κανανίτη̑, but he connected it with Cana in Galilee. This led to the theory that Simon was the bridegroom of the marriage feast in Cana (John 2:1–12). After noting Jerome’s reading and the subsequent bridegroom theory, Barclay wrote, “This interpretation we have regretfully to abandon” (The Master’s Men, 93).
181. Albrecht Stumpff, “ζηλόω,” TDNT, 2 (1964): 886-87. The root ζηλ- is derived from ζέω, meaning “to boil,” or “be hot.” Cf. TGLNT, s.v. “ζῆλο̑,” 271.
182. Cf. Josephus, The Jewish War 2.118, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al, LCL (New York: Putnam’s, 1927), 2:366–69.
183. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2:598–606; Stumpff, “ζηλόω,” 884–87.
184. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Appendix A, “The Zealots,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1: The Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan, 1920–33; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 421–25. As is now well known, the appendix of Jackson and Lake is weakened by a factual error, viz., they assert that the first mention of the Zealots in Josephus is in The Jewish War 4.160-61 and that the term refers to followers of John of Gischala. However, the term first appears in The Jewish War 2.444 where it refers to the followers of Menahem. These errors do not affect the main thesis of Jackson and Lake, viz., the title Zealot as the name of a distinct party of resistance fighters is restricted by Josephus to the war of ad 66–70. This thesis has been strongly defended by a number of modern scholars. Cf. Morton Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origin and Relation,” HTR 64 (1971): 1-19; Marc Borg, “The Currency of the Term ‘Zealot,’” JTS 22 (1971): 504-12; Richard A. Horsley, “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” NovTest 28 (1986): 159-92; T. L. Donaldson, “Zealot,” in ISBE 4 (1988): 1179; David Rhoads, “Zealots,” in AncBDict 6 (1992): 1045.
185. Josephus speaks of the Zealot party in The Jewish War 2.444, 564, 651; 4.160-61, in Josephus, 2:496–97, 540–41, 570–71; 3:48–49.
186. From Maccabean times many Jews fostered the admiration of “zeal,” and various individuals took the name “zealot” or were thought to be “zealots” on the models of Phineas and Elijah, individuals who are singled out in the OT for their zeal. On Phineas, see Numbers 25:1–15; 4 Maccabees 18:12; on Elijah, see 1 Kings 18; 19:10, 14. Cf. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” 18.
187. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 35.
188. Pseudo-Abdias, The Apostolic History 7–23, in Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 528–30.
189. Barclay, The Master’s Men, 99.
190. J. G. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” DCG, 1:907–13 (esp. 907). Much of my discussion of Judas is adapted from Tasker’s magnificent article.
191. BDB, s.v. “יָדָה,” 392.
192. BDB, s.v. “יַהוּדָה,” 397. It is common for modern scholars to argue that יַהוּדָה is not actually derived from “יָדָה. They argue instead that the definition found in Genesis 29:35 is popular etymology, i.e., a word play based on the similar sound of the two words (Paul R. Gilchrist, “y ehûdâ, Judah,” TWOT, 1:369; H.-J. Zobel, “יַהוּדָה” TDOT, 5:482–83). The many suggestions as to the root meaning of יַהוּדָה, however, show that the question has not been decisively answered. Furthermore, there have been modern defenders of the notion that Genesis 29:35 does indeed give a “scientific etymology of the name ‘Judah,’” to use Zobel’s phrase. W. F. Albright understood Judah to be a jussive Hophal of יָדָה meaning “may he be praised” (“The Names ‘Israel’ and ‘Judah’ with an Excursus on the Etymology of Tôdâh and Tôrâh,” JBL 46 [1927]: 173-74; cf. A. R. Millard, “The Meaning of the Name Judah,” ZAW 86 [1974]: 217).
193. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 907.
194. The paraphrase, “ἀπὸ Καριώτου (“from Kerioth”), found four times in John’s gospel in Codex Bezae, is an attempt by copyists to defend the view that Judas was named for his place of abode (Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 908).
195. J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893), 143–44; Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus, trans. D. M. Kay (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 51–52; Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 217; Carson, “Matthew,” 239. Two cities in Scripture bear the name Kerioth, one in the south of Judah (Josh. 15:25), and one in Moab (Jer. 48:24, 41; Amos 2:2); cf. J. B. Scott, “Kerioth,” in ZPEB, 3:785. The interpretation, “man of Kerioth,” is not without its problems, however, and several other interpretations have been offered (M. Limbeck, “᾿Ισκαριότη̑,” EDNT, 2:200–201). Charles C. Torrey observed, “The attempt to explain it has brought forth perhaps as many impossible theories as any other New Testament riddle of the kind” (“The Name ‘Iscariot,’” HTR 36 [1943]: 51). There are at least ten such theories: (1) The one adopted above, i.e., “man of Kerioth.” (2) The name Iscariot is derived from the Greek σικάριο̑ [Latin sicarius] meaning “bandit,” “assassin,” or “cut-throat” [Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1957), 15–16]. (3) The name is derived from the Aramaic sheqar or shiqrā́, meaning “deceit,” “fraud,” “falsehood,” hence, “Judas, the false one” [Torrey, 58–62; Bertil Gärtner, Iscariot, trans. Victor I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 6–7]. (4) It is derived from a word in the Talmud (אסקורטיא or iskortia) meaning a tanner’s garment or “apron.” Since such aprons had purses sewn in them, he was “Judas, the purse bearer” [John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Oxford: University Press, 1859), 2:179]. (5) It is derived from the Aramaic saqrai, meaning “a man of ruddy complexion,” i.e., “Judas the red-head” [Harald Ingholt, “The Surname of Judas Iscariot,” in Studia Orientalia (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953), 159–60; W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, AncB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 118]. (6) It is derived from the Aramaic sāqor, which means “to dye or paint red,” hence, “Judas, the dyer” [Albert Ehrman, “Judas Iscariot and Abba Saqqara,” JBL 97 (1978): 572-73; Yoël Arbeitman, “The Suffix of Iscariot,” JBL 99 (1980): 122-24]. Davies and Allison offer still other possibilities: (7) “man of Jericho,” (8) “man of Issachar,” (9) “man of Coreae,” and (10) “man of Sychar” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:157). Torrey remarked, “No interpretation of the name which has thus far been proposed can survive critical examination” (58). He then advanced his own proposal (view # 3 above), which itself has not survived critical examination!
196. Broadus (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 217) notes that “in his human mind [Jesus] was not omniscient” (Matt. 24:36). Our Lord read Judas’s heart with his unusual human perception, or it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit by whom he had been anointed.
197. While in John’s gospel “all things are commonly traced back to their origin in the eternal counsels of God,” the expression ἐξ ἀρχῆ̑ (ex archēs, “from the beginning”) in this context most likely means “from the beginning of the ministry.” Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 305.
198. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 909, quoting W. F. Moulton.
199. Matthew 10:4 reads, ὁ καὶ παραδού̑ αὐτόν, and Mark 3:19 has, ὅ̑ καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν.
200. Luke 6:16 reads, ὅ̑ ἐγένετο προδότη̑.
201. The Gospels all use the verb παραδίδωμι of Jesus’ betrayal. William Klassen has argued, “The Greek verb παραδίδωμι, which virtually always has been translated ‘betray’ in connection with Judas’s deed, does not mean ‘betray’ in any classical text we were able to discover, never in Josephus and never in the New Testament. Every authority joined in the consensus on this point” (Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 202). Klassen argues that the verb should be translated “hand over” and not “betray” in the Gospel accounts of Judas. His thesis is that Judas and Jesus agreed for Judas to arrange a meeting with the high priest in order that Jesus might rebuke him directly. It is only later that this friendly action of handing Jesus over to meet the high priest was transformed into a more sinister action (74). F. A. Gosling has demonstrated that Klassen’s thesis rests on faulty research. He provides evidence that in classical Greek, the LXX, Josephus, and the NT there are examples of παραδίδωμι used with the meaning “betray.” Cf. “O Judas! What have you done?” EvQ 71 (1999): 117-25.
202. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 908.
203. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 911–12. Klassen (Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? 4–8, 177–93) offers a survey of modern thought about Judas.
204. This view originated with De Quincey and has been defended by William Barclay (The Master’s Men, 78–80).
205. Hyam Maccoby, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil (New York: Free Press, 1992), 1–21 and passim.
206. Tasker (quoting Alexander, Leading Ideas of the Gospels, 107) writes, “The Gospel of the physician is also the Gospel of the psychologist” (“Judas Iscariot,” 910).
207. It is probable that Judas reclined immediately to the left of the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper. John reclined to his right (“on Jesus’ bosom”). This would explain why none of the other disciples heard Jesus tell John a sign by which to recognize the traitor (John 13:24–28). It also explains how Jesus could easily hand the sop to Judas without attracting special notice. Finally, it explains how Jesus could tell Judas he was the betrayer without the other disciples knowing what he had said (Matt. 26:25; John 13:28–29). Judas’s special place at the table, his reception of the sop from his Master (a mark of special attention), and the brief word of Jesus to him all indicate “a tender appeal and a final warning” (Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 908, 910; cf. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2:494).
208. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 910.
209. In Matthew 27:9 the Evangelist writes, “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel.’” It has been argued that Matthew actually quoted Zechariah 11:12–13 and that the ascription of the quote to Jeremiah is an error (“a slip or rather a confusion of memory,” Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], 123). A more satisfactory solution is that Matthew has combined two prophecies in one citation (Zech. 11:12–13; Jer. 19:1–13). The linguistic links with Jeremiah include a potter’s jar, innocent blood, and the renaming of a locality. Matthew ascribed the combined prophecies to Jeremiah because the “lack of verbal resemblance to Jeremiah would cause the Jeremiah side of the prophecies to be lost” (Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 125; Carson, “Matthew,” 563). Others accept the same solution but argue that the Jeremiah texts Matthew had in mind were 18:2–6 and 32:6–15. In these texts there is reference to a potter’s house (18:3), the purchase of a field, and shekels of silver (32:9). See: Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1:651–52; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:568–69.
210. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 1:99.
211. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 224.
212. There is some evidence that the expression (πρηνὴ̑ γενόμενο̑) here translated “falling headlong” is used in the papyri with the meaning “swelling up.” G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937), s.v. “πρηνή̑,” 377; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 109. Also see: Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 256, 263.
213. Tasker, “Judas Iscariot,” 908, 909.
214. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 217.
215. John Albert Bengel wrote of the first candidate, Joseph, “It might have seemed from this surname, that he was to be preferred, unless, indeed, this surname was only given afterwards, to show him that, although Matthias had been chosen, yet his merits were not forgotten” (New Testament Word Studies, 2 vols., trans. Carlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent [Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1864], 1:749).
216. The method by which the lots were cast was, no doubt, the ancient one. The names (on two pieces of broken earthenware or ostraca) were put into a container of some kind, which was shaken until one of them fell out, and that person was chosen. The apostles believed in the sovereign choice of God and that he would insure that the proper name leaped out of the vessel (Acts 1:24). The idea of casting ballots came later and is not found in the Bible. Cf. C. L. Feltoe, “Matthias,” in DAC, 2:20; Emil G. Kraeling, The Disciples (New York: Rand McNally, 1966), 226.
217. Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament,” BibSac 134 (April, 1977): 131-43.
218. Eusebius, Church History 1.12.3; 2.1.1, in NPNF, 2d Series, 1:99, 103.
219. Eusebius, Church History 4.5.3 (176). That Matthias may have been an elder in Jerusalem is certainly possible. That he was “the bishop” of the church there is impossible. The NT knows nothing of the office of monarchial bishop, an office that developed in post NT times.
220. Eusebius, Church History 3.25.6–7 (157).
221. Clement, Stromateis 2.45.4; 3.26.3, trans. John Furguson, vol. 85 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1991), 189, 272. Cf. Feltoe, “Matthias,” 20; ODCC, s.v. “Basilides,” 141; “The Traditions of Matthias,” in The Apocryphal New Testament, 19.
222. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 311; Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 36–37. Zebedee, as a middle-income businessman, would have some wealth and social position, yet neither he nor his sons would have been part of an aristocratic elite. Later Christian writers have tended to stress the commonness and lack of education of the Twelve. Cf. Origen, De Principiis 4.1.2, in ANF, 4:350.
223. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 37.
224. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 132.
225. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 133.
226. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 133.
227. Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, 73–74.
228. Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, 1:86, 87.
229. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” BibSac 128 (April, 1971): 124.
230. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 141.
231. Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 141.
232. Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 142.
233. Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, 1:87.