College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 10:1-4

Section 23
JESUS COMMISSIONS TWELVE APOSTLES TO EVANGELIZE GALILEE

I. JESUS CALLS THE TWELVE AND EMPOWERS THEM FOR SPECIAL SERVICE

TEXT: 10:1-4

And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Have you any idea why Jesus chose exactly twelve to be apostles, no more and no less?

Why would Jesus, God's Son, need to spend the night in prayer prior to the selection of His Apostles? What do you think He prayed about?

Do you think Jesus knew before He chose them what each of the Apostles would become? If so, why did Jesus choose Judas? If you had been Jesus and could read Judas-' future clearer than most people understand their own past, would you have gone ahead and chosen Judas, fully aware that your best attempts to win him over to true discipleship would be in vain? Or do you think Jesus knew all this at the beginning?

What is your opinion: was Judas evil when Jesus called him to be an Apostle? Or did he go bad during his associations with Jesus? If you conclude the latter to be the case, how do you explain this phenomenon of a man who in the best of environment with the finest of human association still being lost as a sinner in the end?

If Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) were also a companion of Jesus at this time, what explanation can you give for Jesus-' not having chosen HIM instead of Judas? Or even in place of some other?

Why does Matthew begin the list of the Apostles-' names by saying, First, Peter. ? In light of the seemingly incurable tendency in the human race to worship heroes and in the light of all Church history, we ask why should Matthew adopt so tendentious a beginning? Could the Holy Spirit, who inspired Matthew, not have foreseen the future developments in Church history and thus been able to forestall that adoration of Peter as the chief of the apostles? What do you think?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus called to Him His twelve disciples, and began to send them out two by two.
(Here follows a flashback to their actual call to Apostleship:
During that earlier period, Jesus, seeing the crowds, went up into the hills to a particular mountain to pray. All night long He continued in prayer to God. In the morning He called to Him His disciples, those whom He desired, and they came to Him. From this group Jesus selected twelve, appointing them to be with Him and to be sent out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. These He named to be Apostles:

Simon Peter (Bar-Jonah)

Andrew (Bar-Jonah), Peter's brother

James (Bar-Zebedee), John's brother

John (Bar-Zebedee). These last two Jesus surnamed Boanerges, an Aramaic word meaning Sons of Thunder.

Philip

Nathanael (Bar-Tholomew or Bar Tolmai)

Thomas Didymus (the Twin)

Matthew Levi, the tax collector (Bar-Alphaeus)

James (Bar-Alphaeus)

10.

Judas Thaddaeus, of James

11.

Simon the Cananean, who was called the Zealot.

12.

Judas Iscariot (Bar-Simon), who became a traitor and betrayed Him.

Then Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place with a great crowd of His disciples. There He preached the Sermon on the Mount as an ordination message.)

Jesus gave them power and authority over all demons and unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and heal every infirmity.

SUMMARY

In relation to the great popularity of Jesus-' ministry, He feels the great urgency to multiply the effectiveness of His own work, as well as the pressing necessity to train His Apostles in practical ways to carry out His ministry. So He collected together the Twelve Apostles, who had been ordained earlier, and commissioned them with this specific, limited ministry.

NOTES

Matthew 10:1 And He called unto Him His twelve disciples. In order better to understand this call it would be helpful to see the various calls of Jesus, to which the Apostles had responded.

Their first invitation to become disciples (cf. John 1:35 to John 2:2)

His call to become intimate companions in travel with Him with more specific purpose to learn evangelism (cf. Matthew 4:18-22; Matthew 9:9). It is presumed that the original call to become collaborators of Jesus, directed to each man, individually, occurred early in the first year. (Cf. Acts 1:21-22)

Their election to Apostleship (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-17).

Now, this first specific mission as Apostles. (Matthew 10).

When one follows the more strictly chronological narratives of Mark or Luke, he sees a vigorous popular ministry in Galilee following the original call to learn evangelism. During that period there also occurs a series of hot controversies as well as wide-spread fame for Jesus and growing interest among the people, including the ordination of the Apostles. Thus this call (Matthew 10:1) arises out of this context and is intended to give them the commission which follows and the instructions for carrying it out. These men had thus advanced in their growth of faith and understanding of Jesus-' mission, from being simple disciples to intimate understudies, then, here, to being Apostles at work under Jesus-' personal direction. Later, they will function entirely on their own, when He would have returned to the Father; but now they are given limited work balanced with their present capacity.

Reasoning in reverse from a fixed point of time relatively certain, we can determine the general time in which this commission was given and executed.

The Passover was at hand when Jesus fed the 5000. (John 6:4) This passover may well have been the beginning of the third year of Jesus-' ministry.

Jesus fed the 5000, although He really intended to escape the notice of Herod (Matthew 14:1; Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:14; Luke 9:7-9).

Herod's attention was turned to Jesus, because of the vigorous, multiple ministry of the Apostles on the very mission recorded in this chapter. (Cf. Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:6-9)

The actual time, then, of this commission is toward the close of the second year of Jesus-' ministry.

What is the connection between the great challenge laid before the Apostles (Matthew 9:35-38) and the commission contained in this chapter? That there is a connection is clear, since the psychological connection is perfect: Jesus lays on the hearts of His men the great, pressing need for laborers, urging them to make it the burden of their prayers. He makes sure that they see the great vision of lost souls that moved Him, in order that they might sense their lostness and be moved by the same compassion that drove Him. At the same time, however, it is obvious that the Lord is not calling around Him (Matthew 10:1) the very men to whom He had just spoken (Matthew 9:35-38), unless we are witnessing a narrowing process by which Jesus individuates the Twelve out of a larger group of disciples who had been so challenged. It may well be that this is the first step in preparing larger groups, like the Seventy (Luke 10). This is beautiful strategy! He sends out a small, well-trained, trustworthy group to succeed on a first mission with limited objectives. Later, Jesus can enlarge the group, using the Twelve as the basic nucleus of experienced evangelists, who are able to train others also. This is workable strategy, even though He has higher goals and a loftier position for the Twelve themselves. (Cf. Matthew 19:27-28) As a psychological masterstroke, this narrowing process is priceless, since the larger band of disciples who are not immediately chosen, both see the choice of the Twelve, hear the terms of their commission and then are permitted to study the problems of the Apostles-' ministry. Then, seeing that common men like themselves can be trusted to carry out Jesus-' missions, more disciples are thereby encouraged to tackle the task of evangelism. It would seem, therefore, that, psychologically speaking, the mission of the Seventy naturally follows the mission of the Twelve, just as Luke (Luke 9:1-10; Luke 10:1-20) arranges it.

He gave them authority: here is a tacit declaration of deity! This Nazarene can share the very authority and power of God without any apparent relationship to the Holy Spirit or of any prayers to God that He grant this to them. How Jesus did this is not part of the text, but the unquestionable, fact is that He did. It is not known whether this sharing of authority was given by the laying on of Jesus-' hands accompanied by the prayers and fasting of the Apostles, or by His simple declaration that they were now the stewards of that power which the Apostles had earlier recognized as God's power in Jesus. Certainly, this solemn, impressive giving of power was neither lightly given nor received.

Authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness. This quick summary of the work of the Apostles serves only to introduce the chapter, not limit what they were to do, inasmuch as their specific instructions actually included more than these two types of miracles. (See on Matthew 10:7-8)

Notice the difference between authority (exousìam) and power (dynamin: Luke 9:1). The former word gives the right to the Apostles to command that demons obey them, while the latter provides the miraculous supernatural force to enforce the order. These Jesus-' men are pitted against Satan's finest, and consequently, against Satan himself, for they will be attacking his house, binding him and seize those his victims. (See on Matthew 12:29) Plummer (Luke, 239) remarks that the Jewish exorcists had neither dynamis nor exomìa, and made elaborate and painful efforts, which commonly failed. This very possession and use of power and authority would be the obvious signal to all Galilee that these Apostles are not magicians or common exorcists, but men from God! That they actually exercised this power is demonstrated in Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:6 (See under VI). Not only so, but Jesus later empowered the Seventy to do the same (Luke 10:17). But by making this statement, Matthew intimates that the Apostles had not worked any miracles before this moment. Until this moment, they were but assistants to Jesus; henceforth they labor alongside Him, working miracles as does He; however, always in dependence upon Him as the giver of the power and because of their trust. (See on Matthew 17:19-20)

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these. Why this apparent emphasis on twelve? This is now the second time in two verses that Matthew brings this number to light. Is he trying to say something special to his Jewish audience? McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 220) is probably on the track of the answer to this unquestionably symbolic choice of exactly twelvenot eleven nor thirteenApostles:

We cannot think that the number twelve was adopted carelessly. It unquestionably had reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, over whom the apostles were to be tribal judges or viceroys (Luke 22:30), and we find the tribes and apostles associated together in the structure of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:12-14). Moreover, Paul seems to regard the twelve as ministers to the twelve tribes or to the circumcision, rather than as ministers to the Gentiles or the world in general (Galatians 2:7-9). See also James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1. This tribal reference was doubtless preserved to indicate that the church would be God's new Israel.

Anyone who has studied the scanty notices of the individual Apostles in the Gospel records must soon despair of knowing very much about each man, And it is no little temptation to start writing Apocryphal Gospels that fill in the missing information that surrounded the lives of these men. Even the best attempts of men not saturated with Ebionite or Gnostic views are not much better at satisfying human curiosity to know these heroic giants of the faith, than were the distorted views pictured in the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Apocalypses. Character studies are simply unfair when based on so slight information, since they become hasty generalizations founded on too few samplings taken from the lives of the men themselves.

But this scarcity of information on the Apostles has great value apologetically, since our records are not the Gospel of Peter, Paul and Mary, but the Gospel of Jesus. Much as we would like to pry into the personality of major figures in the New Testament, these very people themselves indicate the role they play: they are onstage only as secondary characters against which the majesty of Jesus Christ is seen in greater relief. Hence, the New Testament authors were not writing to satisfy our intense curiosity to know the details of the lives of anyone else but Jesus. Though this curiosity is perfectly normal psychologicallyas is evidenced by the flurry of Apocryphal books that deal in this very merchandiseyet the inspired authors stuck to the bare essentials. The Apocryphals cater to our curiosity and show what human inspiration can produce; the genuine, canonical Gospels speak to our need to know Jesus, and show what divine inspiration produces. So we must resign ourselves with Edersheim (Life, I, 521): The difficulties connected with tracing the family descent or possible relationship between the Apostles are so great, as well as almost all other details associated with the lives of these men, that we must forego all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion.

LISTS OF THE APOSTLES

Simon Peter

Simon Peter

Peter

Andrew his brother

James of Zebedee

Andrew his brother

John

James of Zebedee

John his brother

James

John his brother

Andrew

John

Andrew

Philip

Philip

Bartholomew

Thomas

Matthew

Bartholomew

Matthew, publican

Thomas

Matthew

James of Alphaeus

James of Alphaeus

Thaddaeus

Simon the Zealot

Simon, Zealot

Simon the Cananaean

Judas of James

Judas Iscariot

For further information on each apostle, consult encyclopedic articles on related subjects. The following notes were thought helpful.

The first, Simon, who is called Peter. The word first is not intended to signify primacy, but rather its usual numerical sense; as if Matthew were saying, Here is where the list begins, without numbering all of the men. It cannot mean that Peter was the first disciple, since even his own brother, Andrew, preceded him in discipleship (John 1:40-42), and brought Simon to Jesus. There is no doubting that Peter was a preeminent Apostle, judging from the much greater knowledge we have of him than any other Apostle possibly except John or Paul. (See John 1:40-44; Matthew 8:14 ff.; Luke 5:1-11; Matthew 10:2; Matthew 14:28; John 6:68; Matthew 16:13-23; Mark 5:37; Matthew 17:1-5; Matthew 24-27; John 13:1-10; Luke 22:31-34; Matthew 26:31-46; John 18:10-12; Matthew 26:56-58; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-27; John 20:1-10; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Acts 1:15-26; Acts 2-5; Acts 8; Acts 9-11; Acts 12; Acts 15; Galatians 2:11-14; ICo. Matthew 9:5; John 21:18-19; 2 Peter 1:12-15,) Peter's preaching is not only summarized in Luke's Acts, but brought down to our age in the letters Peter wrote. But that this preeminence is no primacy, as will be shown in the outline study: The Primacy of Peter.

Andrew his brother, i.e. Peter'S, hence many of the passages on Peter's early relationship to Jesus apply equally well for -Andrew. Later mentions of Andrew: John 6:8-9; John 12:20-22.

James the son of Zebedee. Although his brother John is more prominent in the Gospel narratives, as well as in the Acts, James is mentioned first here, since, it is thought, he was the older. John is described as James brother, but not vice versa and always appears in the apostolic lists after James, except in the list of Acts. This latter fact may be a foreshadowing of the more eminent position in the Church occupied by John. James-' tragic murder was the first martyrdom among the Apostolic company. (Acts 12:2) See notes on the call of the four fishermen, Matthew 4:18-22.

John his brother. Were James and John cousins of Jesus? It may be that Zebedee's wife and the mother of Jesus are sisters, a possibility which would make these men cousins and explain their special intimacy with the Lord in several important occasions. (See Charts 1 and 5, on the special study, -The Brethren of the Lord, under Matthew 13:54-58). Besides his call and position as one of the inner circle of Jesus-' closest associates (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51; Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36; Matthew 26:36-46), John the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:7; John 21:20), the following texts on James and John reveal that vigor and vehemence, that zeal touching on ambition that probably earned them the title sons of thunder (Mark 3:17): Luke 9:51-55; Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49; Matthew 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45. John's ministry not only involved his early preaching, seen in the Acts, but abides to our time by way of the Gospel that bears his name, three letters and the great Revelation (Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:4; Matthew 1:9).

Matthew 10:3 Philip of Bethsaida (John 1:44), an early disciple of John the Baptist, brought Nathanael to the Lord (John 1:45). Though the evidence is slight upon which the following description is based, it might be instructive to include it. (ISBE, 2368)

(Philip) himself possessed an inquirer's spirit and could therefore sympathize with Greek's doubts and difficulties. the slower Philip, versed in the Scriptures (cf. John 1:45), appealed more to the critical Nathanael and the cultured Greeks (cf. John 12:20-22). Cautious and deliberate himself and desirous of submitting all truth to the test of sensuous experience (cf. John 14:8) he concluded the same criterion would be acceptable to Nathanael also (John 1:46). It was the presence of this materialistic trend of mind in Philip that induced Jesus, in order to awaken in His disciple a larger and more spiritual faith, to put the question in John 6:6, seeking to prove him.. It was not merely modesty, but a certain lack of self-reliance, that made him turn to Andrew for advice when the Greeks wished to see Jesus.

Bartholomew is possibly the surname (Bar Tolmai = son of Tolmai) for Nathanael of Cana in Galilee. The arguments backing this identification of two names with one man are:

Nathanael is never mentioned by the Synoptic Gospels, while Bartholomew is never mentioned by John, who implies that Nathanael was one of the Twelve (John 21:2).

In the Synoptics, Philip is closely connected with Bartholomew (see lists of the Apostles), and in John with Nathanael (cf. John 1:45 ff.). It was Philip who brought him to Christ.

Most of the other Apostles have two names; why not Nathanael Bar-Tolmai?

Thomas Didymus (the Twin of whom? See John 11:16) Interestingly, the Clementine Homilies, Matthew 2:1, supply the name Eliezar as Thomas-' twin brother. Where was this unknown twinhad he chosen not to follow Jesus? Had that twin too been separated from Thomas by the dedication to the Master of his twin-Apostle? Coincidentally, he is always linked with Matthew, in the Synoptic lists: was he associated in work with Matthew? Consider the imaginative description of Kerr (ISBE, 2973), worked out of these texts: John 11:16; John 14:5; John 20:24-29; John 21:2 :

Although little is recorded of Thomas in the Gospels, he is yet one of the most fascinating of the apostles. He is typical of that naturea nature by no means rarewhich contains within if certain conflicting elements difficult of reconciliation. Possessed of little natural buoyancy of spirit, and inclined to look upon life with the eyes of gloom or despondency, Thomas was yet a man of indomitable courage and entire unselfishness. Thus with a perplexed faith in the teaching of Jesus was mingled a sincere love for Jesus the teacher. In the incident of Christ's departure for Bethany, his devotion to his Master proved stronger than his fear of death. Thus far, in a situation demanding immediate action, the faith of Thomas triumphed; but when it came into conflict with his standards of belief it was put to a harder test. For Thomas desired to test all truth by the evidence of his senses, and in this, coupled with a mind tenacious both of its beliefs and disbeliefs, lay the real source of his religious difficulties. It was his sincerity which made him to stand aloof from the rest of the disciples till he had attained to personal conviction regarding the resurrection; but his sincerity also drew from the testimony to that conviction, My Lord and my God, the greatest and fullest in all Christianity.

Matthew the publican unobtrusively inserts his own name in this hall of fame, containing names of the greatest men our world will ever know. Fully conscious of the significance of the list, Matthew never ceased to marvel in the wonder at God's grace who could make use of a PUBLICAN! Notice that although Matthew tells very little about any other Apostleperhaps a distinguishing appellative here or a blood relationship therehe does not mention the occupation of any other Apostle. The only Apostles about which he tells anything negative are Matthew the publican and Judas Iscariot! Other than his other name, Levi, son of Alphaeus (Cf. Matthew 9:9 with Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) little else is known of the man, except his authorship of this Gospel. It is not likely that Alphaeus, his father, should be the same as the father of James of Alphaeus, for this man would have been his brother, a fact that he would hardly have overlooked in light of the other pairs of brothers mentioned.

James the son of Alphaeus. See Chart 5 on the Brethren of the Lord under Matthew 13:54-58 to visualize the following points relative to this James, Simon and Thaddaeus, all of which are problematic and inconclusive:

This James of Alphaeus is thought to be identifiable with James the Little (Mark 15:40).

If we see four women at the cross and identify Mary, the mother of James the Little and Joses (Mark 15:40) with Mary of Clopas (John 19:25);

And if the name Clopas is linguistically and personally to be identified with Alphaeus (on which question good scholars stand both for and against);

And if Clopas be admitted to be Joseph's brother, according to the testimony of Hegesippus cited by Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. iii, 11);

Then James of Alphaeus (Clopas) is also a cousin of the Lord.

Thaddaeus is the same as Judas of James, as a comparison of the lists of the Apostles shows, Matthew and Mark always using the former name; Luke consistently adopting the latter. So it is Judas Thaddaeus of James, but how are we to understand the genitive of Jamesbrother or son? It would seem strange to use the genitive for brotherhood when it is so often intended to indicate the parent, unless there is some clear, overriding reason in a special case to interpret it otherwise. Perhaps in putting the emphasis on James in the name Judas of James, we have looked back to the last-mentioned man of that name, when it might have been Luke's purpose only to distinguish this Judas from the next Judas (Iscariot) in much the same way as does John who actually says Judas, not Iscariot (John 14:22). If this James happened to be just another unknown man by that name, then, of course, the supposed kinship to Jesus of Thaddaeus Judas of James vanishes.

Matthew 10:4 Simon the Cananaean is just hellenized Hebrew for Simon the Zealot. Edersheim provides the true Hebrew for what comes out in Greek as Cananaean: Qannaim (Life, I, 237; on the Zealots, see encyclopedic articles and Edersheim, Life, 237-242; cf. Notes on Matthew 9:27; Matthew 9:30). Is this Simon the same man as the Symeon, mentioned by Hegesippus (Eccl. Hist., iii, 11; iv, 22), who was the son of Clopas, Joseph's brother? If so, Simon would be the brother of James of Alphaeus, granted the possible identifications given in his case. While these two men, James of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, are not called brothers, as are the first two pairs, yet it is strange that Luke (Luke 6:15-16 and Acts 1:13) should consistently bracket the name of Simon by the names James of Alphaeus and Judas of James. He does this without either identifying the James intended in the second case or explaining whether the simple possessive form (lakôbou) means son or brother, unless that relationship was so clear as to require no further explanation. It may be that the explanation is to be found right in the text: James, Judas Thaddaeus and Simon are three brothers, sons of the same father Alphaeus-Clopas. But these connections, if that they may be called, are too tenuous to provide anything more than interesting speculation.

Judas Iscariot, who-also betrayed him. What an epitaph! It is his only claim to fame. Most folks think he was a Judean from the Judean town named Kerioth (Joshua 15:25), or perhaps of Moab, since there too was such a city (Jeremiah 48:24; Amos 2:2), because his family name, Iscariot, seems to be derived from Ish-Kerioth, a man of Kerioth. However, this is not conclusive since a Galilean could carry such a name without being from Kerioth himself. In Italian, for example a man can be named Giovanni di Bologna (John of Bologna) but be born and live in Rome, or Katherine Genovese (the inhabitant of Genova, Italy) who lived her whole life in New York. So Judas-' Judean name does not make him any less a Galilean than Peter, unless, of course, other information should prove him so. Simon Iscariot, Judas-' father (John 13:26), may have been an immigrant from Judah (or even son of immigrants himself) in which case such a distinction would make sense in the new area in which he was the newcomer, easily distinguished from the other Simons of Galilee by the nickname Simon, the man from Kerioth. Passages from which a picture of Judas can be gleaned are: John 6:66-71; John 12:5-6; cf. also Matthew 26:7-13; Mark 14:3-8; Matthew 26:14-15; Mark 14:10-11; cf. Luke 22:3-6; John 13:10-18; John 13:21-30; Matthew 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21; Matthew 26:16; Matthew 26:47-50; Mark 14:43-44; Luke 22:47; John 18:2-5; Matthew 27:3-10; Acts 1:16-20.

These two contrasts, chosen from among many fine character studies of the Apostles, deserve wider readership, even though there is some obvious, if excusable, fiction writing here:

Simon the Zealot. in whom hot passion masqueraded as holy zeal. The impure fire had been clarified, and turned into holy enthusiasm, by union with Christ, who alone has power to correct and elevate earthly passion into calm and permanent consecration and ardour, What a contrast he presents to the last name (Judas Iscariot)! A strangely assorted couple, these two; the zealot, and the cold-blooded, selfish betrayer, whose stagnant soul has never been moved by any breath of zeal for anything!

(Alexander Maclaren, PHC, 246)

One, Simon the Cananean, -was a former guerrilla fighter, sworn to kill on sight any Jew who had dealings with the despised Romans. One Jew whom Simon would have killed on sight was our author, Matthew! Matthew quietly inserts his own name in the roster of the Twelve which includes the name of Simon the Cananean, his one-time, would-have-been assassin! Matthew reminds his readers that the disciples had nothing in common with each other except their common loyalty to Jesus Christ. A renegade, Matthew, and a patriot, Simon, who had taken a blood oath to kill any such renegademen with the most diverse backgrounds were brought together by Jesus Christ.

(William P. Barker, As Matthew Saw the Master, 35)

That Jesus could unite such men to labor side-by-side, gives tremendous witness to Jesus-' power to convert men! If the Master can make such eternally good use of such common men, what extraordinary encouragement to put ourselves at His disposal!

FACT QUESTIONS

When and where did Jesus first acquire disciples?

When and where did He first call men to leave home and follow Him constantly, to become His companions in travel and labor?

When and where did He first name the twelve disciples to be apostles?

When and where did He first send forth to preach with power and authority?

When and where did He question them about their faith in His identity?

When and where did He promise them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth?

Name the twelve Apostles, and tell what you know about each one.

Distinguish between the words disciple and apostle, showing the stages of relationship to Jesus and His work through which the Twelve passed from one to the other.

Although Jesus chose Judas to become an Apostle, what did He already know about the man? (See John 6:70-71; John 17:12)

10.

Describe the sermon that was preached by Jesus at the time of the choosing of the Twelve to become Apostles and show its particular fitness for that occasion.

11.

Describe the sermon that was preached by Jesus at the time of the official commissioning of the Apostles, and show its particular fitness and importance for that occasion.

SPECIAL STUDY

THE SUPREMACY OF PETER

The fact that the Apostle Peter is personally mentioned first in every list of the Apostles, and in Matthew's list is marked for special preeminence by the expression: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, has certainly been misinterpreted by many as expressing the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Lord's fisherman-Apostle.
For the following basic outline, which brings together important evidences to the contrary, we are endebted to McGarvey (Four-fold Gospel, 221f), to which is added a note here and there:

Peter's natural talents gave a personal, but not an ecclesiastical, preeminence over his fellows. This explains not only the Lord's natural preference for this boisterous ex-fisherman over the other less expressive, though nonetheless sensitive, Apostles.

That Peter had supremacy or authority over his brethren is

nowhere stated by Christ, (Matthew 16:18-19 notwithstanding, see Notes)

nor claimed by Peter himself; (see below under 4)

nor stated by the rest of the Twelve.

The total blackout in the New Testament on this subject, so important to the development of the Biblical doctrines of the Church, is incomprehensible in light of the papal claims made for him. For, if this primate position were essential to the nature of the Church, the Apostles could hardly be thought to have omitted reference to it, even if only in passing. But this total silence is most significant: it cannot mean that the other Apostles had no opportunity to mention it, since many Pauline discussions, for example, describe the fundamental unity and nature of the Church without ever once touching the (reputed) primacy of Peter as unitary head of the Church on earth.

The clear declarations of Christ place the Apostles upon the same level with each other. (Cf. Matthew 23:8-11; Matthew 18:18; Matthew 19:27-28; Matthew 20:20-27; John 20:21-23; Acts 1:8; Luke 22:24-27) As will be seen in the study of Matthew 18, in its entirety, had Jesus wanted to clarify the burning question of hierarchy in favor of any one of the Apostles, the opportunity offered Him in that context could not have been better. In that case, had He needed to clarify the proper spirit in which to serve Him, while explaining the structure of ecclesiastical hierarchy, which was the practical import of the disciples-' question (Matthew 18:1; cf. Mark 9:33-34; Luke 9:46-48), He missed His chance. Evidence that the supposed primacy of Peter was not settled in his favor by the declarations in Matthew 16:18-19 is to be found in the fact that long after Jesus-' promises and predictions about Peter, the disciples dispute about which of them was to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24 ff.). In both of these situations, just a word from Jesus explaining that, despite His demands for humility of spirit and a willingness to serve others, yet Peter was to take command of the Church, would have sufficed for all ages to establish Peter's ecclesiastical primacy.

Peter's own declaration, rather than assert his supposed primacy, claims no more than a position equal to that of other officers in the Church under Christ (1 Peter 5:1; 1 Peter 5:4). That any of his supposed successors do not follow in the footsteps of Peter is revealed in the chasm that separates his doctrine from theirs. Peter himself shows that the Church was not established upon him as petra (cf. 1 Peter 2:4-9, especially in Greek).

Paul's attitude toward Peter is incredible in light of the latter's supposed supremacy:

Paul withstood Peter to his face, a fact that is unbelievable in light of the theory of practically total infallibility (Galatians 2:11-14). Practical total infallibility, not merely when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, is fundamental to modern Catholic belief:

The bishops when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff, must be heard by all with veneration, as witnesses of the divine and catholic truth; and the faithful must accept the judgment of their Bishop given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and adhere to it with religious respect. But this religious respect of will and intelligence is in a special manner due to be given to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, with the result that his supreme teaching authority be accepted with reverence, and that the pronouncements given by him be adhered to with sincerity, according to the mind and will manifested by him, which is made clear especially either by the nature of the documents or by the frequent riproposing of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.
(Documents of the Vatican II Council, Lumen Gentium, on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, paragraph 25, my translation from the Italian text.)

If lists in themselves are important, Paul lists Peter as second in importance to James the Lord's brother (Galatians 2:9). Although this is no complete list of the leading figures in the Jerusalem Church, it shows Paul did not consider the order of names in his sentence of great importance, as might be supposed to be the case in a tightly organized hierarchy of which the Roman system is the best example.

Paul did not despise Peter, but sought him out especially (Galatians 1:18-19), but this is stated in a context where Paul vigorously denies any dependence upon other Apostles for the authority of his own apostolic mission. (Galatians 1:11-12; Galatians 1:16 b, Galatians 1:17; cf. Matthew 2:6-9)

The attitude of James at the Jerusalem council is incredible, since after the speech of the infallible Peter, James requires, Brethren, hearken unto me. my judgment is.., These words of James would be rendered utterly superfluous after the declarations of Peter, were he really supreme. Further, it is the decision of the assembled Apostles and elders to follow the advice of James. (Cf. Acts 15:7-11 with Acts 15:13-21).

McGarvey concludes that, were it possible even to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter were actually primate in the ecclesiastical sense among the Apostles, the papacy would still be left without a valid claim to its pretended honors, since it would still have to prove that it was heir to the rights and honors of Peter, which is something it has never yet done. The papal claim rests not upon facts, but upon several assumptions:

That Peter had supreme authority among the Apostles and evident infallibility;

That he was the first bishop of Rome (important, because all successive bishops of Rome are thought to be his lineal successors.)

That the peculiar powers and privileges of Peter (if he had any) passed at the time of his death from his own person, to which they belonged, to the chair of office which he thus vacated.

That ANY Apostle had a successor.

That the bishop of Rome is Peter's direct and personal successor.

That any successor of the bishop of Rome possesses the infallibility invested in him as the supreme teaching authority of the Church.

It might be getting too far afield from our principle theme, the supremacy of Peter, but in connection with the misuse of any evidence of Peter's preeminence, it would be well to remember that the so-called lineal successors of the Apostles do not at all qualify for the office to which they lay claim, inasmuch as the following qualifications identify an apostle:

They must have seen the risen Lord. (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1)

They must have been called to Apostleship by the Lord to fulfil that mission assigned to them particularly by the Lord who sent them. (John 20:21) In the absence of positive proof that the Apostles left behind specific directions for their own succession, we are obligated to believe that they left none, hence did not pass on their unique mission.

They must perform the signs of an Apostle:

In miraculous gifts (2 Corinthians 12:12) that authenticate their message and their doctrines as from God;

In the conversion of souls to the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:2), not in drawing away disciples after them (Acts 20:30)

In the establishment of churches in all the world (Galatians 2:8)

In divine revelations (1 Corinthians 11:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 6:17; Galatians 1:9-12; Philippians 4:9; Colossians 2:6-8) not in the imposition of human traditions that contradict God's revelation.

They must serve as the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20), i.e. their word given under the direct supervision of the Holy Spirit must serve as direction and support for the Church throughout all ages of its existence (Jude 1:3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Revelation 22:18-19; 1 John 4:6; Hebrews 2:1-4; Hebrews 13:7, etc.)

For a discussion of Peter's peculiar responsibility to use the keys of the kingdom, see notes on Matthew 16:18-19.

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 10:1-4

Old Testament

New Testament