Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 6:12 - 6:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Luk_6:12-49
á . The Choice of Apostles (Luk_6:12-16)
(Parallels: Mat_10:2-4; Mar_3:13-19.)
In prayer to God.—It is of the greatest moment that the choice of the apostles is preceded by a night of prayer, and that it may thus be denominated the fruit of the most immediate communion of the Son with the Father. An echo of this prayer we hear in the heartfelt supplication of the Lord for all those given Him by the Father. (Joh_17:6-9.)
Luk_6:13. His disciples.—According to the definite account of Luke, we are to conceive the matter thus, that the Saviour caused a great number of the disciples to come to Him, and now out of this number called the twelve apostles. We have, therefore, to distinguish clearly this choice of apostles, on the one hand, from the later mission of the apostles indicated by Matthew 10 in giving their names (Luk_6:1; Luk_6:5), on the other hand, from the earlier relation in which at least some of these men had already stood to Jesus. First had they become friends, then disciples of the Lord in a wider sense, afterwards are they called as apostles to leave all (Luk_5:10-11; Luk_5:27-28), but now united in a distinctly formed circle of apostles. And even within this there are still grades in respect of their intimate communion with Christ. Even as apostles He calls them at first servants (Mat_10:24), afterwards friends and children (Joh_13:33; Joh_15:15), finally even brethren (Joh_20:17).
Whom also He named apostles.—The complete college of the twelve did not, therefore, first arise after Jesus’ ascension by gradual selection from a wider circle of His adherents (Schleiermacher, Weisse), but it was founded by Jesus Himself. Only on this supposition do we understand the character of the Sermon on the Mount as a dedicatory discourse, as well as the connection between this act of the Saviour and the previous solitary prayer. Although John does not mention the formal choice of apostles, yet it appears from Joh_6:70; Joh_15:16, that he by no means contradicts it. It is true that the name apostle in other places in the New Testament is not exclusively given to the twelve (see Gal_1:19; Act_14:14; Heb_3:1). But the Saviour Himself never, so far as we know, used this name otherwise than as the designation of the twelve to whom He entrusted the apostolic function.
The apostolic catalogue of Luke agrees almost entirely with that of Matthew; see Lange ad loc., who also communicates particularly what is most worth knowing respecting the names of each one. We wish chiefly to suggest the heavenly wisdom of the Saviour in the manner in which they have been paired. Although Luke does not give the names in pairs but individually (see Luk_6:14), yet from the comparison with other specifications of the names it is easy to see how the pairs must have been arranged.
a. Peter and Andrew. In all catalogues of the apostles Peter stands at the head. The man full of fire and energy, the son of Jonah (a dove), who is to become a rock of the doves, the mouth of the apostolic circle, as John constitutes its heart; of fiery spirit, as the latter of deep sensibility; ever ready for combat, as the latter is patient in enduring—and by his side Andrew, his brother, whose personality is less prominent, but who brought his brother to Jesus (Joh_1:42), and afterwards appears a single time as the fourth intimate companion of the Saviour along with the three specially chosen ones, Mar_13:3.
b. John and James, his brother, sons of Zebedee and own cousins of the Lord, the first prophet and the first martyr among the twelve. The question why they received the name Boanerges appears to have been best answered by Theophylact, who says this name designated them, ὡò ìåãáëïêÞñõêáò êáὶ èåïëïãéêùôÜôïõò . Against the view that this name was meant to be a censure of their fiery zeal (Luk_9:51 seq.), maintained by Gurlitt, see Lange in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, 1. Comp. Leben Jesu, ii. p. 696.
c. Philip and Nathanael, the son of Tholmai (Bartholomæus), two friends (Joh_1:45 seq.), the one of Bethsaida, the other of Cana in Galilee. Nathanael is known for his uprightness (Joh_1:47), Philip for his frankness, through which he ventured to open every difficulty to the Lord (Joh_6:7; Joh_12:22; Joh_14:9). Two men involved in similar prejudices, but also animated by like love to the truth, belonged in the apostolic circle together.
d. Matthew and Thomas. In this fourth pair the name Matthew in Luke and Mark stands first, but he himself gives himself a second place, perhaps in the same feeling of humility in which he has added to his name the phrase ὁ ôåëþíçò . Both are apparently of Galilee. If Thomas was of a heavy, melancholy temper, on the other hand Matthew, as we know from the narrative of his calling (Luk_5:27-28), was distinguished by the capability of easily surmounting great difficulties; and while the one, moreover, was disposed to solitary thought, the other appears from his former calling to have gained a certain facility in intercourse with men. Thus does one supplement the other
e. James, the son of Alphæus or Cleophas, and Lebbæus, surnamed Thaddæus. The former certainly is not one and the same with James, the brother of the Lord (Joh_7:5). The other, agreeably to his two names, ìֵá , cor, úַּã , mamma, a courageous, spirited man. It is unnecessary to understand here two different persons, and far less can we believe (Von Ammon) that some apostles, because they did not come up to the Saviour’s expectations, were even in His life replaced by others. No, Lebbæus and Thaddæus are one person; however, the question remains: what was the proper name of the man who possessed this double surname? Here Luke (Luk_6:16) shows us the way with his: êáὶ Ἰïýäáí Ἰáêþâïõ , only we must not understand by this the brother but the son of an otherwise unknown James. From Joh_14:22 we know that besides Judas Iscariot there was yet another Judas among the twelve. This similarity of name may have been the cause why he was not commonly called Judas, but by one of his surnames, as indeed Jerome with reason called him the Three-named.
f. Judas Iscariot and Simon Zelotes, or Cananites. These two names, the one Greek and the other Hebrew, signify “The Zealot.” The germ of zealotism, which first developed itself in the last Jewish war, already existed in the days of the Saviour; perhaps Simon had already appealed to the law of the Zealots and belonged to the followers of Judas Gaulonites, before he became an apostle. Apparently the Lord placed the high-spirited, vigorous man beside the dark form of Judas Iscariot, on account of the moral preponderance which Simon might exercise upon his character, but also because Judas could most easily unite himself with a brother who had already previously striven for a political and outwardly theocratical end. It is noticeable, moreover, that Judas Iscariot, in Luke, is not coupled with Simon Zelotes, but with Judas, the son of James. We need not, however, conclude from this alone that tradition, in respect to the pairing of the apostles, had already become uncertain. We incline the rather to suppose that the Saviour, who quite early penetrated the character of Judas, did not always associate the same companion with him. By change, the danger of being infected by Judas was averted, and from different sides an influence was exerted for the ennobling of his character. The vigorous, hearty Lebbæus might for his part have been as well fitted for that as the courageous zealot.
As to the choice of the apostles in general, comp. an admirable dissertation by Lange in his miscellaneous writings, part iv. p. 158, and the authors cited by Hase, Life of Jesus. Some names of apostles which are mentioned in the Gemara, namely, Nazar, Nabi, Bohi, are of later and fabulous origin, and can, therefore, by no means be turned as weapons against the evangelical tradition. Respecting the conjectural fate and deeds of these twelve, which were very early embellished by tradition, see Winer in voce.
2. The choice of apostles is one of the most brilliant proofs of the adorable wisdom of the Saviour. 1. He chooses simple-minded, yet already measurably prepared, men. To some has the Baptist’s instruction, to others the toilsome fisherman-life, or the active publican’s office, been a more suitable school of preparation than a scientific preparation by Hillel or Shammai. 2. Few, yet very diverse, men. He works intensively before He begins to labor extensively on the kingdom of God that is to be founded. He will rather perfect some than only partially train many. Accordingly He trains them with and also by means of one another, and shows how fully His gospel accommodates itself to every point of human development, and how it is perfectly calculated for every one’s individual necessities. 3. Some prominent to go with several less noticeable men whom He gathers together into a little company. So far as we can see, the beautiful figurative language used in 1Co_12:14-27 is also completely applicable to the organism of the apostolic circle. Had all been as distinguished as a Peter, a John, and as afterwards a Paul, the unity would have suffered by the diversity, and the one light would have been broken into altogether too many colors.
3. With this wisdom the preëminence which He gives to three of His apostles above the others is not in conflict. Unquestionably the preëminence is undeniable (Mar_5:37; Mar_9:2; Mat_26:37), but it was at the same time relative, natural, beneficent. Relative, for it by no means excluded sharp rebuke of personal failings and close observation of the necessities of each single one (Mat_16:23; Luk_9:54-55). Not Peter and the sons of Zebedee, but Andrew and Philip, make the Lord acquainted with the request of the Greeks (Joh_12:22). The former we find sitting with the three on the Mount of Olives (Mar_13:3), with the latter the Lord counsels as to how He shall feed the people (Joh_6:5). Natural, on account of their individuality and the need of the Son of Man for personal intimacy. A Christ who, among twelve intimate associates, had not one bosom-friend, we should scarcely understand or be able to love. Beneficent, for the training as well of the elect three for their special work as of the other nine, who must thus have learned to see that as well the Saviour’s vocation as the preëminence accorded by Him was only free grace.
4. Quite as little difficulty does the primacy of Peter offer, which we, understanding it in a sound sense, do not need to deny. Only one-sided ultra-Protestantism can assert that the Lord did not concede to Peter the slightest preëminence. Certainly it is not accidental that his name in all the apostolic catalogues is the first; and that the word of the Saviour (Mat_16:18) refers not alone to the confession but also to the person of Peter, is scarcely to be denied. Yet over against this, observe: 1. That the Lord also most sharply rebukes or humbles the high-placed apostle; 2. that his prerogatives are communicated to all the apostles, see Mat_18:18; Joh_20:22; John 3. that the other apostles and first churches conceded to him no primacy in the Roman Catholic sense (Act_11:12; Luke 15; Gal_2:11); 4. that he did not claim it for himself (1Pe_5:1-4); 5. that even the most ancient church fathers do not acknowledge it in respect to him. See J. Ellendorf, The Primacy of the Roman Popes.
5. As respects, finally, the choice of Judas, we are to avoid, on the one hand, the Docetic conception that Christ had at His very first meeting with him seen through the future traitor, and chosen him entirely ad hoc; on the other hand, the Ebionitic one, that He erred like a common man, and found a devil where He had expected an angel. According to the first, we must pity Judas as the victim of an unavoidable destiny, while the other view presents not indeed the love, yet so much the more the wisdom, of the Saviour in an unfavorable light. The only correct view is this, to see in the choice of Judas, the highest stake of adventurous love, which finds in him the germ for much that is excellent, and does all that is possible to win him wholly, but soon discovers that the evil is much stronger than the good, Joh_6:69, and now expressly warns him, Mat_6:19-21; Mar_7:21-23; Luk_12:16-20; repeatedly leaves him free to go, Joh_6:67; Joh_13:27; with long suffering endures him, Joh_13:11; finally, with majesty removes him, but now henceforth can look back even upon the son of perdition with tranquillity, because He has not on his account the least thing with which to reproach Himself, Joh_17:12. Living and dying, therefore, even Judas preserves the rank of a witness of the Lord, so that the scoff of unbelief upon this point, from Celsus on (see Origen Contr. Celsum, ii. p. 11) even to Strauss and later than he, rebounds on the head of its own authors. Comp. the weighty judgment of Lavater on Judas, communicated by Niemeyer, Charakteristik der-Bibel, 1. pp. 83, 86.
6. The result has justified the wisdom of the Saviour in the choice of apostles most admirably. The kingdom of heaven founded by so frail and weak instruments on earth, stands as a work of God in the strictest sense of the word before us. When we compare what the twelve originally were with what they afterwards became, we obtain the convincing proof of the power of the grace of the Lord, but see at the same time how the Holy Spirit works not for the destruction but for the purifying and ennobling of each particular individuality.
7. “First they become disciples, then apostles; not at once are they sent out to preach, and not at once into all the world. Christ was no enthusiast, to have called His apostles without instruction, and as it were with unwashed hands to the ministry. During a long time did He instruct them with great diligence, and carefully train them up for their future vocation, and yet upon the apostles a special miracle of the Holy Spirit was to be shown forth! How much more does it become us to insist that the servants of the Lord shall right earnestly study with persevering diligence and holy eagerness to learn in order to become fit to teach.” Chemnitz.
Starke:—The affairs of the kingdom of God we should prefer to all convenience and earthly repose.—Cramer:—Teachers and preachers must not crowd themselves into their office, but wait till they are sent by Christ, the Lord of the harvest.—Bibl. Wirt.:—We should not form such an idea to ourselves of the church of Christ on earth, as if it could be without hypocrites and ungodly.—Arndt:—The names of the twelve apostles: 1. Their choice; 2. their importance. We may: a. not overvalue, b. but quite as little fail to recognize their incomparable preëminence. “Their preëminence in the church has been, moreover, through all centuries in such wise recognized, that never has an important teacher of it, never has a martyr or a reformer, ventured to attribute to himself the appellation of an apostle, as little as any one since then has again borne the name of Jesus. Only high-minded fanatics have now and then chosen twelve apostles and two and seventy disciples from their adherents, but all “these sects have long since fallen under the judgment of history (and the Irvingites?).”
Borger:—The apostolic catalogue. I. Historically. 1. What was the work of the apostles? 2. What were the men whom the Lord chose to this work? 3. Why did He choose just such men? II. Apologetically. 1. These apostles the best witnesses of the Lord; 2. proofs for the divinity of the gospel; 3. even the traitor witness of the truth.—Van Oosterzee:—The catalogue of the apostles: I. A source of knowledge. This catalogue fills 1. a brilliant chapter in the history of mankind, 2. a sublime chapter in the history of Jesus, 3. a noteworthy chapter in the history of the Divine government. II. A support of faith. It witnesses of 1. the truth, 2. the sublimity, 3. the divinity, 4. the imperishableness, of the gospel. III. A school of life. It displays the image 1. of the condition, 2. of the intended work, 3. of the prerogatives, of the Christian church even in our days.
Footnotes:
Luk_6:14.—For the insertion of êáß — êáß before the names James and Philip also, among others, we have B., D., L., [Sin.]. In the same way it appears that this particle must be read before all the following names, Luk_6:15-16. Luke, therefore, does not give the names of the apostles in pairs, but singulatim. [Before Éáê ., Luk_6:15, om. êáé A., B., D.2, 11 other uncials, ins. êáé D.1, Sin., L. Considering that êáé is so strongly supported before all the other names, it is evident that if it is to be omitted here, it is a mere taking of breath on the part of the evangelist, and does not introduce a pair.—C. C. S.]
Luk_6:16.—“Usually, and I believe rightly, rendered Jude the brother of James, see Jude, Luk_6:1, and note.” Alford. Winer supports the same opinion as Alford, Meyer the same as Van Oosterzee. It appears to me that the former is preferable.—C. C. S.]
Luk_6:16.— êáὶ here has not sufficient manuscript testimony (see Tischendorf). At least it gives room for the conjecture that it is taken from the parallels in Matthew and Mark. [Om. B., L., Sin.—C. C. S.]
[See Notes on the text.—C. C. S.]