Click here to return to Blog Post Intro
In Scripture the Twelve are called “disciples”—mathetes in the Greek text (Matthew 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; Luke 9:1). The word means “learners, students.” That is what they were during those months they spent under the direct and personal tutelage of the Lord.
They are also designated “apostles”—apostoloi in the Greek. The word simply means “messengers, sent ones.” They were given a unique ambassadorial office of authority and spokesmanship for Christ.
COMMON MEN, UNCOMMON CALLING
Christ personally selected and appointed the Twelve to represent Him. They were twelve perfectly ordinary, unexceptional men.
A dozen men under the power of the Holy Spirit are a more potent force than the teeming masses whose initial enthusiasm for Jesus was apparently provoked by little more than sheer curiosity.
Consider the four phases of their calling:
- Phase one was a calling to conversion. It illustrates how every disciple is called first to salvation. We must recognize Jesus as the true Lamb of God and Lord of all, and embrace Him by faith.
- Phase two of their calling was a call to ministry. Jesus said, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19).
- Matthew 10:1-4 and Luke 6:12-16 describe a third phase of their calling. This was their calling to apostleship. It was at this point that Christ selected and appointed twelve men in particular and made them His apostles.
- There was a fourth phase of their calling, which occurred after Jesus’ resurrection. This was, in effect, a call to martyrdom. Each of them ultimately gave his life for the sake of the gospel. History records that all but one of them were killed for their testimony. Only John is said to have lived to old age, and he was severely persecuted for Christ’s sake, then exiled to the tiny island of Patmos.
The choosing of the twelve apostles was a judgment against institutionalized Judaism. It was a renunciation of those men and their organizations, which had become totally corrupt.
THE TWELVE
It’s a shame they have so often been put on pedestals as magnificent marble figures or portrayed in paintings like some kind of Roman gods. That dehumanizes them. They were just twelve completely ordinary men—perfectly human in every way. We mustn’t lose touch with who they really were.
The Twelve were like the rest of us; they were selected from the unworthy and the unqualified. They were, like Elijah, men “with a nature like ours” (James 5:17). They did not rise to the highest usefulness because they were somehow different from us. Their transformation into vessels of honor was solely the work of the Potter.
God chooses the humble, the lowly, the meek, and the weak so that there’s never any question about the source of power when their lives change the world. It’s not the man; it’s the truth of God and the power of God in the man.
They became great spiritual leaders and great preachers under the power of the Holy Spirit, but it was not because of any innate oratorical skill, leadership abilities, or academic qualifications these men had. Their influence is owing to one thing and one thing only: the power of the message they preached.
They were faces in the crowd until Christ selected them and made twelve of them apostles. Why twelve? Why not eight? Why not twenty-four? The number twelve was filled with symbolic importance. There were twelve tribes in Israel. It was based on physical descent from Abraham rather than the faith of Abraham. In choosing twelve apostles, Christ was in effect appointing new leadership for the new covenant.
The Greek verb apostello means “to send out.” The noun form, apostolos, means “one who is sent.” The English word apostle is a transliteration, rather than a translation, of the Greek word. The apostles were “sent ones.” But they were not mere messengers. The Greek word for “messenger” was angelos, from which we get our word “angel.” An apostolos was something more significant than a courier or a herald; apostolos conveyed the idea of an ambassador, a delegate, an official representative.
Mark 3:14 records this event: “Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach.” Notice the two-step process. Before they could be sent out to preach, they had to be pulled in.
When they forsook their jobs, they by no means became idle. They became full-time students, learners—disciples. Now the next eighteen months of their lives would be filled with even more intensive training—the best seminary education ever. They had the example of Christ perpetually before them.
Why was the learning process so difficult for the apostles?
- They lacked spiritual understanding. They were slow to hear and slow to understand.
- They lacked humility. They were self-absorbed, self-centered, self-promoting, and proud.
- They lacked faith. Four times in the Gospel of Matthew alone Jesus says to them, “Oh you of little faith” (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8).
- They lacked commitment. While the crowds were cheering and the miracles were being multiplied, they were thrilled. But as soon as the soldiers came into the garden to arrest Jesus, they all forsook Him and fled (Mark 14:50).
- They lacked power. On their own, they were weak and helpless, especially when confronted with the enemy.
Why would He single out men with no understanding, no humility, no faith, no commitment, and no power? Simply this:
Again, we see how He chooses the weak things of this world to confound the mighty.
PETER—THE APOSTLE WITH THE FOOT-SHAPED MOUTH
And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” — Luke 22:31 – 32
We have four lists of the twelve apostles in the New Testament: Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, and Acts 1:13. In all four biblical lists, the same twelve men are named, and the order in which they are given is strikingly similar. The first name in all four lists is Peter. He thus stands out as the leader and spokesman for the whole company of twelve.
The groups appear to be listed in descending order based on their level of intimacy with Christ. Jesus kept three men very close to Him—Peter, James, and John. Next came Andrew, and then the others, obviously in declining degrees of close friendship. If Christ in His perfect humanity could not pour equal amounts of time and energy into everyone that He drew around Him, no leader should expect to be able to do that.
That Matthew, a former tax collector, and Simon, a former Zealot, could be part of the same company of twelve apostles is a testimony to the life-changing power and grace of Christ.
The first person in the first group—the man who became the spokesman and the overall leader of the group—was “Simon, whom He also named Peter” (Luke 6:14). “Peter” was a sort of nickname. It means “Rock.” (Petros is the Greek word for “a piece of rock, a stone”) The Aramaic equivalent was Cephas (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9).
When Jesus looked at him, He said, ‘You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated, A Stone).” Those were apparently the first words Jesus ever said to Peter. And from then on, “Rock” was his nickname.
By nature Simon was brash, vacillating, and undependable. He tended to make great promises he couldn’t follow through with.
Tommy Lasorda, former manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, tells the story of a young, skinny pitcher who was new in the Dodgers’ minor league system. The youngster was somewhat timid but had an extraordinarily powerful and accurate arm. Lasorda gave him a nickname that was exactly the opposite of his personality: “Bulldog.” Over the years, that is exactly what Orel Hershiser became—one of the most tenacious competitors who ever took the mound in the major leagues. The nickname became a perpetual reminder of what he ought to be, and before long, it shaped his whole attitude. This young man named Simon, who would become Peter, was impetuous, impulsive, and overeager. He needed to become like a rock, so that is what Jesus named him.
Matthew 10:2: “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter.” The word translated “first” in that verse is the Greek term protos. It doesn’t refer to the first in a list; it speaks of the chief, the leader of the group. Peter’s leadership is further evident in the way he normally acts as spokesman for the whole group. He is always in the foreground, taking the lead. He seems to have had a naturally dominant personality, and the Lord put it to good use among the Twelve.
We see in Peter’s life three key elements that go into the making of a true leader: the right raw material, the right life experiences, and the right character qualities.
RAW MATERIAL THAT MAKES A TRUE LEADER
There is an age-old debate about whether true leaders are born or made. Peter is a strong argument for the belief that leaders are born with certain innate gifts, but must also be properly shaped and made into a true leader.
Several innate features are important:
- Peter was inquisitive. When you’re looking for a leader, you want someone who asks lots of questions.
- Peter took initiative. If a man is wired for leadership, he will have drive, ambition, and energy. A true leader must be the kind of person who makes things happen. He is a starter. Notice that Peter not only asked questions; he was also usually the first one to answer any question posed by Christ.
- Peter needed to be trained and shaped and matured, so he was involved. True leaders are always in the middle of the action.
THE LIFE EXPERIENCES THAT SHAPE A TRUE LEADER
Peter made the most of his experiences, gleaning from them lessons that helped make him the great leader he became.
THE CHARACTER QUALITIES THAT DEFINE A TRUE LEADER
Character, of course, is absolutely critical in leadership. In recent years, some have tried to argue that character doesn’t really matter in leadership; what a man does in his private life supposedly should not be a factor in whether he is deemed fit for a public leadership role. That perspective is diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches. Character does matter in leadership. It matters a lot.
Lasting leadership is grounded in character. Character produces respect. Respect produces trust. And trust motivates followers.
What are some of the character qualities of a spiritual leader that were developed in the life of Peter?
- Submission: Leaders tend to be confident and aggressive. They naturally dominate. Peter had that tendency in him. He was quick to speak and quick to act.
- Restraint: Most people with natural leadership abilities do not naturally excel when it comes to exercising restraint. Self-control, discipline, moderation, and reserve don’t necessarily come naturally to someone who lives life at the head of the pack. Hotheadedness goes naturally with the sort of active, decisive, initiative-taking personality that made him a leader in the first place. The Lord more or less put a bit in Peter’s mouth and taught him restraint.
- Humility: Leaders are often tempted by the sin of pride. In fact, the besetting sin of leadership may be the tendency to think more of oneself than one ought to think.
As Peter learned all these lessons and his character was transformed—as he became the man Christ wanted him to be—he gradually changed from Simon into Rock. He learned submission, restraint, humility, love, compassion, and courage from the Lord’s example. And because of the Holy Spirit’s work in his heart, he did become a great leader. He preached at Pentecost and three thousand people were saved (Acts 2:14-41).
Peter’s life could be summed up in the final words of his second epistle: “Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).That is exactly what Simon Peter did, and that is why he became Rock—the great leader of the early church.
ANDREW—THE APOSTLE OF SMALL THINGS
One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. — John 1:40-42
Andrew was the first of all the disciples to be called (John 1:35-40).
Peter and Andrew had probably been lifelong companions with the other set of fishermen—brothers from Capernaum—-James and John, sons of Zebedee.
Andrew must have known full well that as soon as Peter entered the company of disciples, he would take charge and Andrew would be relegated to a secondary status. Yet Andrew brought his older brother anyway. That fact alone says much about his character.
Of all the disciples in the inner circle, Andrew appears the least contentious and the most thoughtful.
Andrew fully appreciated the value of a single soul. He was known for bringing individuals, not crowds, to Jesus. At the feeding of the five thousand, for example, it was Andrew who brought the boy with the loaves and fishes to Christ.
That’s the way Andrew usually seemed to minister: one-on-one. Most pastors would love to have their churches populated by people with Andrew’s mentality. Too many Christians think that because they can’t speak in front of groups or because they don’t have leadership gifts, they aren’t responsible to evangelize. There are few who, like Andrew, understand the value of befriending just one person and bringing him or her to Christ.
Thank God for people like Andrew. They’re the quiet individuals, laboring faithfully but inconspicuously, giving insignificant, sacrificial gifts, who accomplish the most for the Lord.
JAMES—THE APOSTLE OF PASSION
Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. —Acts 12:1-2
The biblical account is practically devoid of any explicit details about the life and character of James. He, Peter, and John were the only ones Jesus permitted to go with Him when He raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37). The same group of three witnessed Jesus’ glory on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1). James was among four disciples who questioned Jesus privately on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3).
As a member of the small inner circle, he was privileged to witness Jesus’ power in the raising of the dead, he saw His glory when Jesus was transfigured, he saw Christ’s sovereignty in the way the Lord unfolded the future to them on the Mount of Olives, and he saw the Savior’s agony in the garden.
The key word that applies to the life of the apostle James, that word is passion. From the little we know about him, it is obvious that he was a man of intense fervor and intensity. In fact, Jesus gave James and John a nickname: Boanerges—”Sons of Thunder.”
Even the fact that James was the first to be martyred—and that his martyrdom was accomplished by no less a figure than Herod—suggests that James was not a passive or subtle man, but rather he had a style that stirred things up, so that he made deadly enemies very rapidly.
The question of who deserved the most prominent thrones became the big debate among them, and they carried it right to the table at the Last Supper (Luke 22:24). James wanted a crown of glory; Jesus gave him a cup of suffering. He wanted power; Jesus gave him servanthood. He wanted a place of prominence; Jesus gave him a martyr’s grave. He wanted to rule; Jesus gave him a sword—not to wield, but to be the instrument of his own execution. Fourteen years after this, James would become the first of the Twelve to be killed for his faith.
JOHN—THE APOSTLE OF LOVE
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. — John 13:23
John wrote much of the New Testament—he was the human author of a Gospel and three epistles that bear his name, as well as the book of Revelation.
John has often been nicknamed “the apostle of love.” Indeed, he wrote more than any other New Testament author about the importance of love—laying particular stress on the Christian’s love for Christ, Christ’s love for His church, and the love for one another that is supposed to be the hallmark of true believers. The theme of love flows through his writings. But love was a quality he learned from Christ, not something that came naturally to him.
He was volatile. He was brash. He was aggressive. He was passionate, zealous, and personally ambitious—-just like his brother James. They were cut from the same bolt of cloth.
Under the control of the Holy Spirit, all his liabilities were exchanged for assets. Compare the young disciple with the aged patriarch, and you’ll see that as he matured, his areas of greatest weakness all developed into his greatest strengths.
The younger disciple John at various times behaved like an extremist, a bigot, and a harsh, reckless man who was selfishly committed to his own narrow perception of truth. In his early years he was the most unlikely candidate to be remembered as the apostle of love.
John’s love of truth is evident in all his writings. He uses the Greek word for truth twenty-five times in his Gospel and twenty more times in his epistles.
Mark 9:2 tells us, “Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them.” Christ took His three most trusted, intimate friends and disciples to a mountain, where He pulled back the veil of His human flesh so that the shekinah glory—the very essence of the nature of the eternal God—was shining out in blazing brilliance.
The kingdom needs men who have courage, ambition, drive, passion, boldness, and a zeal for the truth. John certainly had all of those things. But to reach his full potential, he needed to balance those things with love.
John was always committed to truth, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, but it is not enough. Zeal for the truth must be balanced by love for people. Truth without love has no decency; it’s just brutality. On the other hand, love without truth has no character; it’s just hypocrisy.
If you pursue anything in the spiritual realm, pursue a perfect balance of truth and love. Know the truth, and uphold it in love. In Ephesians 4, the apostle Paul describes this balance of truth and love as the very pinnacle of spiritual maturity. He writes of “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (v. 13).
There was nothing intrinsically wrong with James and John’s desire to sit next to Jesus in the kingdom. Who would not desire that? The other disciples certainly desired it, and that is why they were displeased with James and John. Jesus did not rebuke them for that desire per se. Their error was in desiring to obtain the position more than they desired to be worthy of such a position. Their ambition was untempered by humility. And Jesus had repeatedly made clear that the highest positions in the kingdom are reserved for the most humble saints on earth. He had also told them, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14).
Again and again, Christ had emphasized this truth: If you want to be great in the kingdom, you must become the servant of all. Throughout John’s Gospel, for instance, he never once mentions his own name. (The only “John” who is mentioned by name in the Gospel of John is John the Baptist.) The apostle John refuses to speak of himself in reference to himself. Instead, he speaks of himself in reference to Jesus. He never paints himself in the foreground as a hero, but uses every reference to himself to honor Christ. Rather than write his name, which might focus attention on him, he refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20), giving glory to Jesus for having loved such a man. In fact, he seems utterly in awe of the marvel that Christ loved him.
Somewhere along the line, John’s ambition found balance in humility. John himself was mellowed—although he remained courageous, confident, bold, and passionate.
If we desire to participate in heavenly glory, we must also be willing to partake of earthly sufferings. This was the apostle Paul’s desire:
Suffering is the price of glory. We are “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (Romans 8:17).
Virtually all reliable sources in early church history attest to the fact that John became the pastor of the church the apostle Paul had founded at Ephesus. From there, during a great persecution of the church under the Roman Emperor Domitian (brother and successor of Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem), John was banished to a prison community on Patmos, one of the small Dodecanese Islands in the Aegean Sea off the west coast of modern Turkey. He lived in a cave there. It was while there that he received and recorded the apocalyptic visions described in the book of Revelation.
John learned to bear suffering willingly. There is no complaint about his sufferings anywhere in his epistles or the book of Revelation. It is certain that he wrote Revelation under the most extreme kind of hardship and deprivation.
John himself describes the scene as Jesus looked down from the cross and saw His mother, Mary, along with her sister, another Mary (wife of Clopas), Mary Magdalene, and John (John 19:25). John writes, “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (vv. 26-27). Obviously, John had learned the lessons he needed to learn. He had learned to be a humble, loving servant—or else Jesus would not have given him the care of His own mother.
Several witnesses in early church history record that John never left Jerusalem and never left the care of Mary until she died.
The fishermen of Galilee—Peter, Andrew, James, and John—became fishers of men on a tremendous scale, gathering souls into the church. They are still bringing multitudes of people to Christ. Although they were common men, theirs was an uncommon calling.
PHILIP—THE BEAN COUNTER
Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may have a little.” — John 6:7
In the four biblical lists of the twelve apostles, the fifth name on every list is Philip. Philip is a Greek name, meaning “lover of horses.” He must also have had a Jewish name, because all twelve apostles were Jewish. But his Jewish name is never given.
Don’t confuse him with Philip the deacon, the man we meet in Acts 6 who became an evangelist and led the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ. Philip the apostle was a completely different individual.
Since they were all God-fearing Jews, Philip probably grew up attending the same synagogue as Peter and Andrew. There is good biblical evidence that Philip, Nathanael, and Thomas were all fishermen from Galilee, because in John 21, after the resurrection, when the apostles returned to Galilee and Peter said, “I am going fishing” (John 21:3), the others who were there all answered, “We are going with you also.”
Piecing together all that the apostle John records about him, it seems Philip was a classic “process person.” He was a facts-and-figures guy—a by-the-book, practical-minded, non-forward-thinking type of individual. He was the kind who tends to be a corporate killjoy, pessimistic, narrowly focused, sometimes missing the big picture, often obsessed with identifying reasons things can’t be done rather than finding ways to do them. He was predisposed to be a pragmatist and a cynic—and sometimes a defeatist—rather than a visionary.
Philip’s seeking heart is evident in how he responded to Jesus. “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote; Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'” (John 1:45). Obviously, Philip and Nathanael, like the first four disciples, had been studying the Law and the Prophets and were seeking the Messiah.
Often he was a man of weak faith. John 6:5 says, “Then Jesus lifted up His eyes, and seeing a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?'” Why did He single Philip out and ask him? John says, “This He said to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do” (v. 6).
Philip was apparently the apostolic administrator—the bean counter. It is likely that he was charged with arranging meals and logistics. Whether officially or unofficially, he seems to have been the one who was always concerned with organization and protocol. He was the type of person who in every meeting says, “I don’t think we can do that”—the master of the impossible.
By the time Jesus asked the question, Philip already had his calculations prepared: “Philip answered Him, Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may have a little'” (John 6:7).
Instead of thinking, “What a glorious occasion! Jesus is going to teach this crowd. What a tremendous opportunity for the Lord!”—all pessimistic Philip could see was the impossibility of the situation. When Jesus tested his faith, he responded with open unbelief. It can’t be done.
Philip was probably thinking, “One denarius would buy twelve wheat biscuits. Barley’s cheaper. So with one denarius we could buy twenty barley biscuits. If we get the small biscuits and break them in half. . . Nah, it simply can’t be done.”
He was so enthralled with common-sense calculations that he didn’t see the opportunity the situation presented. He should have said, “Lord, if You want to feed them, feed them. I’m just going to stand back and watch how You do it. I know You can do it, Lord. You made wine at Cana and fed Your children manna in the wilderness. Do it. We will tell everyone to get in line, and You just make the food.” That would have been the right response. But Philip was convinced it simply couldn’t be done. The limitless supernatural power of Christ had completely escaped his thinking.
THE UPPER ROOM
Jesus added an explicit claim about His own deity.
It was at this point that Philip spoke up: “Philip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us'” (v. 8).
“Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father”?'” (v. 9).
What did Philip think had been going on for the past two or three years? How could Philip of all people, who had responded with such enthusiastic faith at the beginning, be making a request like this at the end? Where was his faith?
For three years Philip had gazed into the very face of God, and it still was not clear to him. His earthbound thinking, his materialism, his skepticism, his obsession with mundane details, his preoccupation with business details, and his small-mindedness had shut him off from a full apprehension of whose presence he had enjoyed. Philip, like the other disciples, was a man of limited ability. He was a man of weak faith.
Tradition tells us that Philip was greatly used in the spread of the early church and was among the first of the apostles to suffer martyrdom. Philip obviously overcame the human tendencies that so often hampered his faith, and he stands with the other apostles as proof that “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).
NATHANAEL—THE GUILELESS ONE
Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” —John 1:49
In the Gospel of John, he is always called Nathanael. Bartholomew is a Hebrew surname meaning “son of Tolmai.” Nathanael means “God has given.”
The synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts contain no details about Nathanael’s background, character, or personality. According to John 21:2, Nathanael came from the small town of Cana in Galilee, the place where Jesus did His first miracle, changing water into wine (John 2:11).
Philip and Nathanael were apparently close friends, because in each of the synoptic Gospels’ lists of the twelve apostles, the names of Philip and Bartholomew are linked. In the earliest church histories and many of the early legends about the apostles, their names are often linked as well. Apparently, they were friends throughout the years of their journey with Christ.
Philip obviously was close to Nathanael, and he knew Nathanael would be interested in the news that the long-awaited Messiah had finally been identified. In fact, he couldn’t wait to share the news with him. So, he immediately pursued him and brought him to Jesus. “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote'” (John 1:45).
Obviously, the truth of Scripture was something that mattered to Nathanael. This probably indicates that Nathanael and Philip were students of the Old Testament together.
Philip didn’t appeal to Nathanael on the basis of how Jesus might make Nathanael’s life better. Philip spoke of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, because he knew that would pique Nathanael’s interest. Nathanael, as an eager student of the Old Testament, was already a seeker after divine truth.
The depth of Nathanael’s prejudice comes through in the words he chose: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Nazareth was a rough town. Its culture was largely unrefined and uneducated. (It is still much the same today.) It isn’t a particularly picturesque place.
Nathanael, though he came from an even more lowly village, was simply echoing the Galileans’ general contempt for Nazareth. This was the same kind of regional pride that might cause someone from, say, Cleveland, to speak with disdain about Buffalo. Here again we see that God takes pleasure in using the common, weak, and lowly things of this world to confound the wise and powerful.
It was inconceivable to Nathanael that the Messiah would come out of a tacky place like Nazareth. It was an uncultured place, full of evil, corrupt, and populated with sinful people. Prejudice is ugly. Generalizations based on feelings of superiority, not on fact, can be spiritually debilitating. Prejudice cuts a lot of people off from the truth. As a matter of fact, much of the nation of Israel rejected their Messiah because of prejudice.
Jesus was derided as Joseph’s son (Luke 4:22); He was without honor even in His own country, because he was nothing but a carpenter’s son (v. 24).
Men’s ears are closed to the gospel by many kinds of prejudice—racial prejudice, social prejudice, religious prejudice, and intellectual prejudice. Fortunately, Nathanael’s prejudice wasn’t strong enough to keep him from Christ. “Philip said to him, ‘Come and see'” (v. 46). And Nathanael went. Fortunately, his prejudiced mind was not as powerful as his seeking heart.
Nathanael was pure-hearted from the beginning. Certainly, he was human. He had sinful faults. His mind was tainted by a degree of prejudice. But his heart was not poisoned by deceit. He was no hypocrite. His love for God, and his desire to see the Messiah, were genuine. His heart was sincere and without guile. Jesus refers to him as “an Israelite indeed.” The word in the Greek text is alethos, meaning “truly, genuinely.” He was an authentic Israelite.
Nathanael was a true disciple from the start. There was no hypocrisy in him. This is very unusual, and it was particularly rare in first-century Israel. Early church records suggest that he ministered in Persia and India and took the gospel as far as Armenia.
MATTHEW—THE TAX COLLECTOR
As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. —Matthew 9:9
All twelve, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, were from Galilee. That whole region was predominantly rural, consisting of small towns and villages. Its people were not elite. They were not known for their education. They were the commonest of the common. They were fishermen and farmers.
That is how it has always been in God’s economy. He exalts the humble and lays low those who are proud. It was ultimately because of His message that they hated Him, vilified Him, and finally executed Him. That is precisely why when it came time for Him to appoint apostles, He chose lowly, ordinary men. These were men who were not reluctant to acknowledge their own sinfulness.
Matthew, of course, is the author of the Gospel that bears his name. For that reason, we might expect to have a lot of detail about this man and his character. But the fact of the matter is that we know very little about Matthew.
Matthew was a tax collector—a publican—when Jesus called him. That is the last credential we might expect to see from a man who would become an apostle of Christ, a top leader in the church, and a preacher of the gospel. After all, tax collectors were the most despised people in Israel. They often strong-armed money out of people with the use of thugs. Most were despicable, vile, unprincipled scoundrels.
As a tax collector, Matthew was on the same level socially as harlots (Matthew 21:32). For a Jewish man like Matthew to be a tax collector was even worse. His occupation made him a traitor to the nation, a social pariah, the rankest of the rank. He would also have been a religious outcast, forbidden to enter any synagogue. Therefore, Matthew’s only friends were the riffraff of society—petty criminals, hoodlums, prostitutes, and their ilk. They were the ones he invited to his house to meet Jesus. Jesus and the apostles, according to Matthew’s own account, gladly came and ate with such people.
This is virtually all we know of Matthew: He knew the Old Testament, he believed in God, he looked for the Messiah, he dropped everything immediately when he met Jesus, and in the joy of his newfound relationship, he embraced the outcasts of his world and introduced them to Jesus. We know that Matthew wrote his Gospel with a Jewish audience in mind. Tradition says he ministered to the Jews both in Israel and abroad for many years before being martyred for his faith.
THOMAS—THE TWIN
Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.” —John 11:16
THOMAS, THE PESSIMIST
The final apostle in the second group of four is also a familiar name: Thomas. He is usually nicknamed “Doubting Thomas, ” but that may not be the most fitting label for him. He was a worrywart. He was a brooder. He tended to be anxious and angst-ridden. He was like Eeyore in Winnie the Pooh. He anticipated the worst all the time. Pessimism, rather than doubt, seems to have been his besetting sin.
Jesus said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless, let us go to him'” (vv. 13—15). It was at this point that Thomas spoke up. Here is where we meet him for the first time in all the Gospel records. “Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with Him'” (v. 16). Now that is pessimistic, and that’s typical for Thomas. But it is a heroic pessimism. He could see nothing but disaster ahead. He was convinced Jesus was heading straight for a stoning. But if that is what the Lord was determined to do, Thomas was grimly determined to go and die with Him. You have to admire his courage.
Thomas was an example of strength to the rest of the apostles. It appears they collectively followed his lead at this point and said, “OK, let’s go and die”—because they did go with Him to Bethany.
Upon news of Jesus’ resurrection and appearance to the other disciples, Thomas was not going to be cheered up so easily. He was still being a hopeless pessimist. All he could see was the bad side of things, and this was just too good to be true. “So, he said to them, ‘Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe'” (v. 25). It is because of that statement that he has been nicknamed “Doubting Thomas.”
Jesus ultimately appeared to him, looked right at Thomas, and said, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing” (v. 27). The Lord was amazingly gentle with him.
Then Thomas made what was probably the greatest statement ever to come from the lips of the apostles: “My Lord and my God!” (v. 28). Let those who question the deity of Christ meet Thomas.
There is a considerable amount of ancient testimony that suggests Thomas carried the gospel as far as India. There are churches in south India whose roots are traceable to the beginning of the church age, and tradition says they were founded under the ministry of Thomas. The strongest traditions say he was martyred for his faith by being run through with a spear—a fitting form of martyrdom for one whose faith came of age when he saw the spear mark in his Master’s side and for one who longed to be reunited with his Lord.
JAMES—THE LESS; SIMON—THE ZEALOT; AND JUDAS (NOT ISCARIOT)—THE APOSTLE WITH THREE NAMES
James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; Judas the son of James … —Luke 6:15-16
As we examine this last group of apostles, we discover that although Scripture says very little about them, they nonetheless have their own distinctions.
JAMES, SON OF ALPHAEUS
The ninth name in Luke’s list of the apostles (Luke 6:14-16) is “James the son of Alphaeus” (v. 15). The only thing Scripture tells us about this man is his name.
Practically all we know about the James with whom we are concerned is that he was the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Mark 15:40, we learn that James’s mother was named Mary. That verse, together with Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:47 mention another of this woman’s sons, Joses. Joses must have been well-known as a follower of the Lord (though not an apostle), because his name is mentioned repeatedly. Their mother, Mary, was obviously a devoted follower of Christ as well. She was an eyewitness to the crucifixion. She is also one of the women who came to prepare Jesus’ body for burial (Mark 16:1).
James’ lack of prominence is even reflected in his nickname. In Mark 15:40 he is referred to as “James the Less.” The Greek word for “Less” is mikros. It literally means “little.” Its primary meaning is “small in stature, ” so it could refer to his physical features. Perhaps he was a short or small-framed man.
SIMON THE ZEALOT
The next name given in Luke 6:15 is “Simon called the Zealot.” In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, he is called “Simon the Canaanite.” That is not a reference to the land of Canaan or the village of Cana. It comes from the Hebrew root qanna, which means “to be zealous.”
Zealots were more politically minded than any group besides the Herodians. The Zealots hated the Romans, and their goal was to overthrow the Roman occupation. They advanced their agenda primarily through terrorism and surreptitious acts of violence.
Unlike the Pharisees (who were willing to compromise for political reasons), the Zealots were militant, violent outlaws. The Zealots were hoping for a Messiah who would lead them in overthrowing the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel with its Solomonic glory.
It is interesting that when Matthew and Mark list the Twelve, they list Simon just before Judas Iscariot.
When Jesus did not overthrow Rome, but instead talked of dying, some might have expected Simon to be the betrayer—a man of such deep passion, zeal, and political conviction that he would align himself with terrorists. But that was before He met Jesus.
It is amazing that Jesus would select a man like Simon to be an apostle. But he was a man of fierce loyalties, amazing passion, courage, and zeal. Simon had believed the truth and embraced Christ as his Lord. The fiery enthusiasm he once had for Israel was now expressed in his devotion to Christ.
JUDAS, SON OF JAMES
The last name on the list of faithful disciples is “Judas, the son of James.” The name Judas in and of itself is a fine name. It means “Jehovah leads.” But because of the treachery of Judas Iscariot, the name Judas will forever bear a negative connotation. When the apostle John mentions him, he calls him “Judas (not Iscariot)”
In Matthew 10:3, he is called “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus” Judas was probably the name given him at birth. Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus were essentially nicknames. Both names suggest he had a tender, childlike heart.
Most of the early tradition regarding Lebbaeus Thaddaeus suggests that a few years after Pentecost, he took the gospel north, to Edessa, a royal city in Mesopotamia, in the region of Turkey today. There are numerous ancient accounts of how he healed the king of Edessa, a man named Abgar.
The traditional apostolic symbol of Judas Lebbaeus Thaddaeus is a club, because tradition says he was clubbed to death for his faith.
JUDAS—THE TRAITOR
Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” —Matthew 26:25
The most notorious and universally scorned of all the disciples is Judas Iscariot, the betrayer.
The other eleven apostles are all great encouragements to us because they exemplify how common people with typical failings can be used by God in uncommon, remarkable ways. Judas, on the other hand, stands as a warning about the evil potential of spiritual carelessness, squandered opportunity, sinful lusts, and hardness of the heart.
Judas’s name is a form of Judah. The name means “Jehovah leads, ” which indicates that when he was born his parents must have had great hopes for him to be led by God. The irony of the name is that no individual was ever more clearly led by Satan than Judas was.
Judas was ordinary in every way, just like the others. It is significant that when Jesus predicted one of them would betray Him, no one pointed the finger of suspicion at Judas (Matthew 26:22-23). He was so expert in his hypocrisy that no one seemed to distrust him. But Jesus knew his heart from the beginning (John 6:64). Scripture even says that when Jesus chose Judas, He knew Judas would be the one to fulfill the prophecies of betrayal. He knowingly chose him to fulfill the plan.
How do we reconcile the fact that Judas’s treachery was prophesied and predetermined with the fact that he acted of his own volition? There is no need to reconcile those two facts. They are not in contradiction. God’s plan and Judas’s evil deed concurred perfectly. Judas did what he did because his heart was evil.
In John 12, we read, “Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, ‘Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?’” (vv. 4-5).
Jesus responded to Judas in verses 7-8: “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”
Nonetheless, the gentle reprimand seems to have made Judas resent Jesus even more. He did not repent. He did not even examine his own heart. In fact, this incident seems to have been the turning point in his thinking. Three hundred denarii would have been a lot to add to the treasury, offering a prime opportunity for Judas to skim money for his own pocket. Because of Jesus’ willingness to receive such lavish worship, Judas missed a prime opportunity to embezzle funds. It appears to have been the last straw as far as Judas was concerned, because immediately after telling the story of Jesus’ anointing, Matthew says, “Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?’ And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So ,from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him” (Matthew 26:14—16). He crept away, left Bethany, walked about a mile and a half to Jerusalem, met with the chief priests, and sold Jesus to His enemies for a pocketful of coins. Thirty pieces of silver. That is all he could get. According to Exodus 21:32, it was the price of a slave. It was not much money. But it was all he could negotiate.
The contrast is staggering: Our Lord is anointed with overwhelming love by Mary and betrayed with overwhelming hate by Judas at the same time.
Jesus sent him away. That is easy to understand. Jesus is pure, sinless, spotless, and holy. Here was this wretched, evil presence into whom Satan had literally entered. Jesus was not about to have the first communion service with the devil, and Judas present in the room. Get out. Only after Judas had left did our Lord institute the Lord’s Supper. To this day, when we come to the Lord’s Table, we are instructed to examine ourselves lest we come hypocritically to the table and bring judgment upon ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).
Judas Iscariot found himself in a hell of his own making, following Jesus’ crucifixion. Hammered by his own mind for what he had done, Judas found that the money—which had been so important to him before—now did not matter. Matthew 27:3-4 says, “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.'”
Matthew 27:5 says, “Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.” Judas was already in a hell of his own making. His conscience would not be silenced, and that is the very essence of hell. Sin brings guilt, and Judas’s sin brought him unbearable misery. Again, his remorse was not genuine repentance.
Sadly, he did not seek the forgiveness of God. He did not cry out for mercy. He did not seek deliverance from Satan. Instead, he tried to silence his conscience by killing himself. This was the grief of a madman who had lost control.
We can draw some important lessons from the life of Judas:
1. Judas is a tragic example of lost opportunity. He heard Jesus teach day in and day out for some two years. He could have asked Jesus any question he liked. He could have sought and received from the Lord any help he needed.
2. Judas is the epitome of wasted privilege. He was given the highest place of privilege among all the Lord’s followers, but he squandered that privilege—cashed it in for a fistful of coins he decided he did not really want after all. What a stupid bargain!
3. Judas is the classic illustration of how the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
4. Judas exemplifies the ugliness and danger of spiritual betrayal.
5. Judas is proof of the patient, forebearing goodness and loving-kindness of Christ. “The LORD is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9).
6. Judas demonstrates how the sovereign will of God cannot be thwarted by any means.
7. Judas is a vivid demonstration of the deceitfulness and fruitlessness of hypocrisy. He is the branch spoken of in John 15:6 that does not abide in the True Vine.
In the first chapter of Acts, Peter notes,
“For, it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
‘May another take his place of leadership.’
Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
So along with the other eleven, Matthias became a powerful witness of Jesus’ resurrection—one more ordinary man whom the Lord elevated to an extraordinary calling.