[ p. 112 ]
ORDINATION OF THE TWELVE
Mk. iii. 7-12 (cf. Lk. vi. 17-19). Mk. iii. I3-I9« 5 Lk. vi. 12-16; Mt. x. 2-4 (cf. Ac. i. 13). Mt. v. 1-16, 39-42, 44-48, vii. 1-6, 12, 15-27 ; Lk. vi. 20-38, 41-49.
It is St. John that records our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem and His encounter with the Pharisees in the court of the Temple. He does not tell the subsequent issue, but St. Mark takes up the story and in a brief sentence indicates what befell. “Jesus,” he says, “with His disciples withdrew to the Sea”—the Lake of Galilee. (Cf. Mt. ii. 12,14,22) if. His “withdrawal” was, according to the usage of the Greek word, a retreat, a flight from imminent danger. His enemies were bent on destroying Him; they were watching for an opportunity to arrest Him and arraign Him on the capital charges of Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy; and He hastily quitted the city and travelled home to Capernaum.
On resuming His ministry there He found His embarrassments largely increased. His appearance in the Sacred Capital when it was thronged with worshippers from near and far, had spread His fame beyond Galilee and attracted troops of strangers to Capernaum, not only from Judaea but from far southern Idumaea, Persea east of the Jordan, and Phoenicia in the north. So large and eager were the crowds which gathered about Him whenever He appeared by the [ p. 113 ] Lakeside that He had to practise an expedient which He had once before employed. He bade His fisher disciples keep a small boat always ready, (cf. Lk. v. 1-3) and He would get into it and, pushing off a little way, discourse to the multitude on the beach. He continued His ministry of healing, and He was beset by sick folk who in their eagerness, says the Evangelist, would “tumble over Him that they might touch Him.” His miracles were hailed as evidences of His Messiahship, and despite His efforts to restrain it the popular excitement flamed higher than ever.
Thus embarrassingly began the second year of His Galilean ministry, and thenceforward He followed a new method. During the first year His principal employment had been preaching to the multitude. All the while, however, He had been forming His band of comrades who should aid Him in His ministry while He was with them and continue it after He was gone. Their number was now complete, and henceforth their instruction was His chief concern. More and more He withdrew from the clamorous multitude and devoted Himself to His comrades. Ever and anon He would leave Capernaum and retire with them to some quiet retreat where He might commune with them undisturbed of the things of His Kingdom.
And now He ordains them to their high vocation. It was a momentous step, and after His wont He would not take it without first committing His way to God. At eventide instead of retiring to rest He quitted Capernaum and “went up to the mountain,” the upland behind the town ; and there “He spent the night in prayer to God” or, according to an ancient [ p. 114 ] reading and interpretation, “in His place of prayer,” “His oratory.” It was His habit, when He would hold heavenly communion (Cf. Mk. i. 35; Lk. iv. 42), to steal forth thus at eventide ; and on the lone hillside He had an accustomed retreat. It was His oratory, and thither He now resorted. Plainly He did not go alone. Throughout His ministry He craved not only (Cf. Mk. ix. 2, xiv. 33) fellowship with God but human sympathy, and He was wont, when He sought retirement, to take with Him the three disciples who understood Him best—Peter and James and John. It was probably they that accompanied Him now, and in the morning He sent them to summon the rest.
They numbered twelve, and He designated them His “apostles” or “missionaries” and set them in Cf.Mk. pairs that, when they went forth on their arduous missions (Cf. Mk. vi. 7), they might cheer and succour each other. Who were those men so highly honoured ?
Six of them are already well known—the brothers Simon Peter and Andrew, the brothers James and John, Philip, and Matthew. Of the antecedents of Simon and Andrew nothing is recorded save that their father’s name was John and they were fishermen belonging to Bethsaida, the fisher-quarter of Capernaum. Regarding the brothers James and John more is known. There father was Zebedee, a prosperous fisherman, and their mother was Salome. She was a truly remarkable personage (Cf. Mt. xvi. 17; Jo. xxi. 15-17 R.V.; Cf. Jo. i. 44; Cf. Mt. xxvii. 55; Mk. xv. 40; Cf. Mt. xxvii. 55 with Jo. xix. 25). It appears that she was a sister of the Blessed Virgin, her sons being thus in common esteem cousins to our Lord ; and she was one of three devoted women [ p. 115 ] who stood with her at the last beside His Cross. She was a clever and courageous woman, with high though sometimes misguided ambitions (cf. Mt.xx. 20-28) on her sons’ behalf; and they inherited her spirit. They were devoted to the Master ; and patient as they may have been of personal wrongs, an affront to Him enkindled in their breasts a quick (Cf. Mk. ix. 38,39; Lk. ix. 49-56) and passionate resentment which repeatedly earned them His rebuke. Here is perhaps the reason of the sobriquet which He gave them. Just as at His first meeting with Simon He observed the impulsiveness of his disposition and gave him the title of Peter, “the Rock,” expressing the character which he should strive to attain, so by way of admonition He styled James and John Boanerges, “the Sons of Thunder.” Such playful badinage bespeaks the kindly familiarity of His relations with the three, and indeed they were throughout His ministry His closest and most trusted comrades. And truly they were worthy. Who can say which was the most worthy ? John was recognised as “the disciple whom Jesus loved ” ; but Peter, so ardent, so impetuous, so prone to err, so quick to repent, surely merits the praise that he was the disciple who loved Jesus. “If,” says St. Augustine, “we put the question : ‘Which of the two is the better — he who loves Christ more or he who loves Him less ?’ who will have doubt in answering that he who loves Him more is the better ? If we ask : ‘ Which of the two is the better—he whom Christ loves less or he whom He loves more ? ’ we shall answer that he who is more loved by Christ is the better beyond a doubt. In the former comparison Peter is preferred to John ; in the latter John to Peter.” And as for James he [ p. 116 ] surely merited his place in that innermost circle (Ac. xii. 2.); and if little is recorded of him, it is because his career was short. He died a martyr’s death under Herod Agrippa I in the year 44.
Andrew too, according to tradition, won the martyr’s crown. He was crucified, it is said, at Patrse in Achaia on a crux decussata (X), hence known as “the St. Andrew’s Cross.”(Cf. Jo. i. 40-42.) From the sacred narrative it appears that he was warmly attached to his brother Simon ; and perhaps for this reason he was (Cf Mk. xiii. 3; Cf. Jo. vi. 7, 8, xii. 21, 22.) intimately associated with the favoured three. It seems too that there was a close friendship between him and Philip. As for the latter, though diffident and somewhat dull, he had his special gift which the Master employed. Evidently he had an aptitude for practical affairs, and seems that he acted as purveyor to the company (Cf. Jo. vi. 5-7). Matthew also had his special gift. His business in the custom-house had made him a ready scribe, and he afterwards employed his pen in writing the earliest Gospel. This was not our canonical “Gospel according to St. Matthew” but an Aramaic collection of the Sayings of our Lord. It appeared probably in the year 41, and it formed the basis of the precious Greek Gospel which bears his name and which was written as a final appeal to the unbelieving Jews just after the tragic fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. It is very significant that in the story of the Apostle’s call, Mt.ix. 9- whereas St. Mark and St. Luke call him by his old name of Levi, our first Gospel, following his Book of Sayings, calls him by his new name of Matthew (Mt. ix. 9-13; Mk. ii. 13-17; Lk. v. 27-32); and so in their catalogues of the Apostles, while the others call him simply Matthew, it adds the [ p. 117 ] odious designation “the taxgatherer.” Evidently St. Mark and St. Luke, with kindly charity, would have concealed his shameful past, but he published it for the glory of his Saviour’s grace.
What of the other six who now make their first appearance in the narrative ? Bartholomew is named in all the catalogues, and again in the Book of Acts among the company assembled in the upper room at Jerusalem after the Resurrection (Ac. i. 53); there and nowhere else on the pages of the New Testament. It is, however, significant that Bartholomew is not a proper name but merely a patronymic, representing the Aramaic Bar Talmai, “the son of Talmai” ; and it has been suggested that he was none other than Nathanael of Cana (cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 37). There is indeed much reason for the identification. Would it not be strange if Nathanael alone of the five disciples whom Jesus won at Bethabara in the morning of His ministry found no place in His Apostle-company ? It is St. John who tells the story, and he introduces Nathanael once more at the close of his Gospel among the Apostles who waited for the manifestation of the Risen Lord at the Sea of Galilee. (Cf. Jo. xxi. 2)
Surely Nathanael was an Apostle. And surely he was none other than Bar Talmai; for he was, according to St. John, a friend of Philip, and St. Matthew, who catalogues the Twelve in pairs, couples Bar Talmai with Philip as his missionary comrade.
Similarly the other Evangelists merely mention Thomas, and it is to St. John that we owe (cf. Jo. xi. 16; xiv. 5; xx. 24-29) our knowledge of the man—his despondency, his proneness ever to see the dark side, and withal his heroic devotion to the Master. And neither [ p. 118 ] is Thomas a proper name. It is an epithet signifying, as St. John observes, “the Twin,” in Greek Didymus. His name, on the testimony of the historian Eusebius and others, was Judas; and it was natural that it should be superseded, since there were two others in the company who bore that unhappy name. His missionary companion was Matthew, and perhaps the reason of their association may have been that the memory of his shameful past had wrought in the latter a spirit of humility which enabled him to bear with so querulous a companion.
Next comes a second James, distinguished from the first as the son of Alphaeus, the Greek form of Clopas. (Cf. jo. xix. 25 R.V.; Cf. Mk. xv. 40 R.V. marg.) He was known also by reason of his stature as “the Little.” His mother’s name was Mary, and he had a brother called Joses. Tradition has it that he had been a taxgatherer ; and since Alphseus—presumably, in the absence of express discrimination, the same in both cases—was the father also of Levi the taxgatherer, James was Matthew’s brother.
His comrade is variously designated. St. Luke calls him Judas, and to distinguish him from the other Judas of evil memory he styles him “the son of James”— not “the brother of James” as our Authorised Version has it, following an old fancy which identified him with the author of “the Epistle of Jude,” a brother of “James, the Lord’s brother,” oblivious of the fact that ci. Gai. i. none of “His brethren” as vet believed in Him.(Cf. Gal. i. 19; Cf. Jo. vii. 3-5) St. Matthew, again, styles him Lebbaeus (. Libbai ) and St. Mark Thaddseus ( Taddai ). These are epithets, Libbai signifying " hearty” and Taddai probably “affectionate”; and they were intended, [ p. 119 ] like St. Luke’s mention of his unknown father, to distinguish him from the traitor. Only once does he figure in the Gospel narrative—in the Upper (cf. Jo. xiv. 22) Room where he addressed a puzzled question to the Master. It is St.John that tells the story, and he evinces a like solicitude for his comrade’s good name: “Judas—not Iscariot—says to Him.”
Next comes a second Simon, distinguished from Simon Peter as “the Cananaean” or, as St. Luke has it, translating the Aramaic term, “the Zealot.” And who were the Zealots ? They were a fraternity of desperate patriots who had pledged themselves to compass the overthrow of the Roman domination and lost no opportunity of kindling the flame of insurrection. They stood in extreme contrast to the taxgatherers who had taken service under the oppressor; and is it not remarkable that a Zealot and two taxgatherers should have met in the fellowship of Jesus ? He was indeed the Reconciler.
The Zealot’s comrade was “Judas Iscariot, who turned traitor.” Iscariot means “the man of Kerioth,” a village in the south of Judsea. His father’s name was Simon ; and since he also bore the local appellation of Iscariot, it would seem that he was a landowner, occupying an hereditary estate (Cf. Jo. vi. 71, xiii. 26 R.V.). Judas had thus a twofold distinction. The rest of the Apostles were despised Galileans, and he was the only Judaean among them; and he was the only one who could claim consideration on the score of birth and fortune. And just this was his undoing. Worldly ambition was his besetting sin. Like all the others, he entertained the prevailing ideal of the Messiah as a King of David’s lineage and, persuaded by His miracles [ p. 120 ] that He was the Messiah and would presently manifest His regal dignity and take His throne, he espoused His cause, expecting to share the splendid triumph. The course of events shattered that secular dream. The others still held true to the Master, since they had discovered in Him a diviner glory ; but the disappointment of his worldly hope was bitter to Judas and he abandoned what he deemed a lost cause. Surely it is foolish to wonder why Jesus called him to the apostleship or ask if He had been deceived. Judas had excellent qualities , and just as Philip served as purveyor, (Cf. Jo. xii. 6) so he in virtue of his peculiar aptitude acted as treasurer to the company. He was natur ally endowed with high possibilities, and at the outset he promised fair, and had he resisted his baser inclination he would have achieved a noble rank in the Kingdom of Heaven ; and therefore he was called to the apostleship. Is it not God’s way in His providential dealings with men to take them thus as He finds them, granting them their fitting opportunities and leaving the issue to their own determination ? He chose Saul to be king because he was most fit, yet Saul belied His trust and brought himself to dishonour
These twelve Jesus solemnly “ordained” or “appointed —the word employed in the Septuagint (Cf. i Sam. xii. 6) Version of the Lord’s appointment of Moses and Aaron—to their high service. It was, as St. Mark defines it, a twofold service—to bear Him company and to go forth, as He might send them, on preaching missions, practising the business which would devolve upon them after His departure. They were thenceforward His fellow-workers in the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven, and He conferred [ p. 121 ] upon them, as was fitting, His Messianic power of healing.
Thereafter He discoursed to them of the work which lay before them. “Blessed are you” He began ; and with their Jewish notion of an earthly kingdom they would expect to hear of a high destiny of worldly dignity. But far other was the prospect which He had in view. What awaited them and Him alike was an experience of poverty, sorrow, privation, suffering, and persecution ; and therein lay their blessedness. For that was the path which the prophets had trodden before them ; and it was the path which, trodden meekly and bravely and believingly, would lead to honour and triumph and an heritage in the true Kingdom of Heaven. They were called not to selfish ease but to devoted ministry, serving in an evil and dark world like the wholesome salt which, as the Galilean fishermen well knew, saved the harvest of the Lake from corruption, or like the beacon-light which guided them to the harbour.
Their success would depend on the spirit which animated them. And first He inculcates a spirit of meekness. They were going forth into a rude world where they would encounter frequent insult, wrong, and oppression ; and these they must patiently and unresistingly endure. Here, be it observed, He speaks with a quiet humour. A buffet on the face was deemed of old the worst indignity that insult could inflict, exposing the aggressor to a heavy fine. “Are you smitten on the cheek ?” (Cf. 1 Ki. xxii. 24; Ac. xxiii. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 20) He says. “Then do not retaliate or seek redress: turn the other cheek.” This is like the Rabbinical moralist’s counsel: “If your neighbour [ p. 122 ] calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back.” The Jewish law permitted a creditor to seize his debtor s raiment as security. He might take his under-tunic, but he must not take his cloak which served the poor man as a blanket, or if he did, he must restore it ere nightfall.(Cf. Ex. xxii. 26,27) “Forgo this right,” says Jesus. “If he takes your tunic, let him have your cloak too.” Again, the Roman law empowered military officers to “commandeer” men and beasts as baggage bearers (Cf. Mk. xv. 21), and this was indignantly resented by the patriotic Jews. “Cheerfully submit,” says Jesus. “If you are commandeered for a mile, go two.”
And their meek submissiveness must be matched in happier conditions with a large generosity. “Give to one who begs from you, and from one who would borrow of you turn not away.” Of course this is playfully spoken. Indiscriminate charity is a mischievous wrong, ruinous, as Timon of Athens proved, to the giver and demoralising to the recipient. To refuse an alms or a loan is often both a duty and a kindness ; and this our Lord recognises. See what follows. After inculcating thus a boundless generosity He at once commends and defines it by displaying the supreme example. The spring of charity is love ; and true love is universal, embracing not one’s friends alone but one’s enemies. It is thus that the Heavenly Father loves, making His sun rise with impartial benediction on evil men and good and sending rain on righteous and unrighteous. And if we be His sons, then we shall love even as He does, kind to all, befriending all, forgiving all, yet refusing, even as He does, what they ask amiss, withal remembering our own unworthiness. This is [ p. 123 ] our Lord’s requirement—that we should deal with others as God has dealt with us, undeserving though we be, and as we would have them deal with us were we in their place and they in ours. “Whatsoever you desire that men should do to you, do you always so to them.”
Truly the chief reason of our impatience with others is obliviousness of our own demerits ; and their harsh censure of us is largely a retaliation of our censure of them. Why, says our Lord, quoting a carpenter’s proverb, “see the chip in your brother’s eye, never considering the log in your own ? ” Kindly judgment reveals a kindly nature and wins a responsive kindness ; yet it is a spurious charity that ignores moral distinctions, and there are occasions when severity is a duty. The Apostles would encounter unreasonable and contumelious men whom there was no winning ; and these they must leave alone. Argument would only provoke ribaldry ; and why expose the Gospel-message to blasphemy ? Why, in proverbial phrase, “give what is holy to dogs or cast pearls before swine ” ?
The worst offenders would be, as appeared soon after His departure, not the avowed adversaries of the Gospel but “the false prophets,” the heretical teachers who would arise within the Church; and the Lord closes His discourse with a solemn admonition to His Apostles. If they were faithless to their commission, all their gifts would avail them nothing but would rather win them His heavier condemnation on the day of reckoning. His teaching was the foundation on which they must build, and any other foundation was as shifting sand.