Third Millennium Study Bible
Notes on Mark 3:13-19

The Twelve - Mark 3:13-19

Mark reported how Jesus appointed 12 apostles to minister with his authority so that his readers would recognize the importance of the apostles' ministries in their day.

In Mark 3:13, Mark underlined this particular act of Jesus to emphasize its origin in Jesus' determined purpose - "those he wanted" - including Judas, who, by the sovereign will of God (Acts 2:23-24; 4:27-28), would later betray him (Mark 3:19)!

Jesus appointed twelve (Mark 3:14). The significance of the number 12 could hardly be missed (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:29-30). Christ designated them "apostles." Most, but not all, early manuscripts include this phrase. Mark only uses the term "apostles" one other time (Mark 6:30). The Eleven (the faithful apostles) received their full apostolic status in John 20:22, and the Twelve - newly constituted with the addition of Matthias (Acts 1:26) - received their full apostolic gifting when they received the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2. Often in the New Testament the meaning of "apostle" derives from the traditional rabbinic term shaliach ("sent one"). As "sent ones" the apostles bore the full representative authority of the One who sent them, namely, Christ. that they might be with him. The Twelve were unique in regard to the time they spent with the earthly Jesus (cf. "with me"; John 15:26-27). They were to "preach" concerning the Kingdom of God. So, again (cf. Mark 1:14, 17) the priority was mission preaching coupled with exorcism. The time of preparation had a markedly practical emphasis.

Mark and Matthew (Matt. 10:2-4) have an identical list of the apostles. The parallel list in Luke (Luke 6:12-16) is identical except that the name "Thaddaeus" does not occur, and in its place is "Judas son of James" (not Judas Iscariot). The only reasonable explanation of this anomaly is that Thaddaeus had a second name: Judas.

Reference is made to "zealot." This is a member of a religious political party whose goal was national independence and whose means included armed rebellion.

In Mark 3:19, special attention is given to Judas Iscariot. Some believe that Judas was also a Zealot (Mark 3:18) because the name "Iscariot" may have derived from the Latin sicarius ("dagger"). More likely, since it was also the name of his father (John 6:71), the word has a Semitic origin: Ish ("man [of]") joined with "Kerioth," a town in Israel close to Hebron (Jos. 15:25).

Hendriksen gives us a brief description of the apostles:

Simon. He was a son of Jonas or John. By trade he was a fisherman, who with his brother Andrew first lived in Bethsaida (John 1:44), afterward in Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). Both Mark and Luke report that it was Jesus who gave Simon the new name Peter. For details of this event see John 1:42. This new name, meaning rock, was a description not of what Simon was when called, but of what by grace he was to become.

At first, and for some time afterward, Simon was anything but a model of steadfastness or imperturbability. On the contrary, he was constantly swaying from one position to its opposite. He turned from trust to doubt (Matt. 14:28, 30); from open profession of Jesus as the Christ, to rebuking that very Christ (Matt. 16:16, 22); from a vehement declaration of loyalty, to base denial (Matt. 26:33-35, 69-75; Mark 14:29-31, 66-72; Luke 22:33, 54-62); from "By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever," to not my feet only but also my hands and my head" (John 13:8, 9). See also John 20:4, 6; Gal. 2:11, 12. Nevertheless, by the grace and power of the Lord this changeable Simon was transformed into a true Peter.

Accordingly, when Jesus at this early date - for Mark 3:16 reflects John 1:42 - assigned to Simon his new name, that was an act of love, a love that was willing to overlook the present and even the near future, and to look far ahead. Wonderful and transforming grace of our loving Lord!

Two New Testament books are by tradition accredited to this apostle: I and II Peter. Mark has not unjustly been called "Peter's interpreter."

James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James. Mark mentions these two fishermen not only here and in Mark 1:19, 20,but also later on (Mark 9:2; cf. Mark 10:35-45). There are also several references to them in the other Gospels.

Probably because of their fiery nature Jesus called these two brothers Boanerges. This is an Aramaic word, which Mark, who is the only Gospel-writer to report this, for his non-Jewish readers interprets to mean "sons of thunder." The Hebrew name would be benē reghesh. That the two did indeed have a fiery nature may perhaps be inferred from Luke 9:54-56. Cf. Mark 9:38.

James was the first of The Twelve to wear the martyr's crown (Acts 12:2). While he was the first to arrive in heaven, his brother John was in all probability the last to remain on earth. On the life and character of John, considered by many (I believe correctly) as being "the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Five New Testament books have by tradition been assigned to John: his Gospel, three epistles (I, II, and III John), and the book of Revelation.

Andrew. It was he, also a fisherman, who brought his brother Peter to Jesus (John 1:41, 42). For other references to Andrew see above (Mark 1:16, 17, 29); also study Mark 13:3; John 6:8, 9; 12:22. See also below under Philip. [See below].

Philip. He was at least for a while a fellow townsman of Peter and Andrew, that is, he too was from Bethsaida. Having himself responded to the call of Jesus, he found Nathanael, and said to him, "The one about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth" (John 1:45). When Jesus was about to feed the five thousand he asked Philip, "How are we to buy bread-cakes that these (people) may eat?" Philip answered, "Bread cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something" (John 6:5, 7). Philip apparently forgot that the power of Jesus surpassed any possibility of calculation.

To deduce from this incident the conclusion that Philip was a coldly-calculating type of person, more so than the other apostles, would be basing too much on too little. In the Gospels, Philip generally appears in a rather favorable light. Thus, when the Greeks approached him with the request, "Sir, we would see Jesus," he went and told Andrew, and these two, Andrew and Philip, brought the enquirers to Jesus (John 12:21, 22). It must be admitted that Philip did not always immediately understand the meaning of Christ's profound utterances - did the others? - but to his credit it must be said that with perfect candor he would reveal his ignorance and ask for further information, as is also clear from John 14:8, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content." He received the beautiful and comforting answer, " He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Bartholomew (meaning: son of Tolmai). He is clearly the Nathanael of John's Gospel (John 1:45-49; 21:2). It was he who said to Philip, "Out of Nazareth can any good come?" Philip answered, "Come and see." When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him he said, "Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist." This disciple-apostle was one of the seven persons to whom the resurrected Christ appeared at the Sea of Tiberias. Of the other six only Simon Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned.

Matthew. This disciple has already been discussed in some detail (Mark 2:14-17). [See below].

Thomas. The references to him combine in indicating that despondency and devotion marked this man. He was ever afraid that he might lose his beloved Master. He expected evil, and it was hard for him to believe good tidings when they were brought to him. Yet when the risen Savior in all his tender, condescending love revealed himself to him it was he who exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" For more information on Thomas see John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24-28; 21:2.

James the son of Alphaeus. By Mark (Mark 15:40) he is also called "James the Less," which by some is interpreted as meaning "James the younger," but by others as "James small in stature." About him we have no further positive information. It is probable, however, that he was the same disciple who is referred to in Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; and Luke 24:10. If this be correct, his mother's name was Mary, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and stood near the cross. See John 19:25. It has already been shown that the Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew should probably not be identified with Alphaeus the father of James the Less. See Mark 2:14.

Thaddaeus (called Lebbaeus in certain manuscripts of Matt. 10:3 and Mark 3:18). He is in all probability the "Judas not Iscariot" of John 14:22; cf. Acts. 1:13. From what is said about him in John 14 it would seem that he wanted Jesus to show himself to the world, probably meaning: to get into the limelight.

Simon the Cananaean. "The Cananaean" is an Aramaic surname meaning enthusiast or zealot. In fact Luke calls him "Simon the Zealot" (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In all probability this name is here given him because formerly he had belonged to the party of the Zealots, which party in its hatred for the foreign ruler, who demanded tribute, did not shrink from fomenting rebellion against the Roman government. See Josephus Jewish War II.117, 118; Antiquities XVIII.1-10, 23. Cf. Acts 5:37.

Judas Iscariot. This name is generally interpreted as meaning "Judas the man from Kerioth," a place in southern Judea. (Some, however, prefer the interpretation, "the dagger-man.") The Gospels refer to him again and again (Matt. 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3, 47, 48; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:-5). He is at times described as "Judas who betrayed him," Judas one of the twelve," "the betrayer," "Judas the son of Simon Iscariot," Judas Iscariot, Simon's son," or simply "Judas." This man, though thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deeds, was an instrument of the devil (John 6:70, 71).

While other people, when they felt that they could no longer agree with or even tolerate Christ's teachings, would simply disassociate themselves from him (John 6:66), Judas remained, as if he were in full accord with him. Being a very selfish person he was unable - or shall we say "unwilling"? - to understand the unselfish and beautiful deed of Mary of Bethany, who anointed Jesus (John 12:1 ff.). He was unable and unwilling to see that the native language of love is lavishness. It was the devil who instigated Judas to betray Jesus, that is, to deliver him into the hands of the enemy. He was a thief; yet it was he who had been entrusted with the treasuryship of the little company, with the predictable result (John 12:6). When, in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper, the dramatic moment arrived - forever commemorated in Scripture (Matt. 26:20-25; John 13:21-30) and emblazoned in art (Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) - in which Jesus startled The Twelve by saying, "One of you will betray me," Judas, though having already received from the chief priests the thirty pieces of silver as a reward for his promised deed (Matt. 26:14-16; Mark 14:10, 11) had the incredible audacity to say, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" Judas served as guide for the detachment of soldiers and the posse of temple police that arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It was by means of perfidiously kissing his Master, as if he were still a loyal disciple, that this traitor pointed out Jesus to those who had come to seize him (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:43-45; Luke 22:47, 48).

As to the manner of Judas' self-inflicted demise, see on Matt. 27:3-5; cf. Acts 1:18. What caused this privileged disciple to become Christ's ["appointed"] betrayer? Was it injured pride, disappointed ambition, deeply entrenched greed, fear of being put out of the synagogue (John 9:22)? No doubt all of these were involved, but could not the most basic reason have been this, that between the utterly selfish heart of Judas and the infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart of Jesus there was a chasm so immense that either Judas must implore the Lord to bestow upon him the grace of regeneration and complete renewal, a request which the traitor wickedly refused to make, or else he must offer his help to get rid of Jesus? See also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28.

One thing is certain: The shocking tragedy of Judas' life is proof not of Christ's impotence but of the traitors impenitence! Woe to that man!

Which one or ones of these apostles are you like? From the brief descriptions above we see Jesus choose people like you and I. Hopefully, while you will discover similarities with some above, you will not discover yourself to be a Judas.

Related Resources

• Come, follow me - Mark 1:16-20
• The Call of Levi - Mark 2:13-17
• Levi son of Alphaeus - Mark 2:13-14
• The Apostles: Can There Be Apostles Today?