The+Apostles'+Names

toc

In the beginning of the book of Acts, Jesus appeared to the apostles for forty days after His death and resurrection on the cross. After the forty days, He then ascended into heaven. The disciples were gathered in the upper room where they were going to pick Judas Iscariot’s replacement. It is here, in Acts 1:13, that the disciples are named: “And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.” It is noted that Luke, the author of Luke and believed author of Acts, names the disciples in almost the same exact order as Luke 6:14-16. There are some differences in the order; it seems like such a simple thing, however, Luke had a purpose for listing the apostles’ names in a different order.

Although the changes were slight, Luke did write it differently from the list in the book of Luke which reads “Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the song of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” The first noteworthy change is that there are only eleven disciples listed in the book of Acts: Judas Iscariot is omitted.[|[1]] Judas, the betrayer of Jesus Christ, had committed suicide which prompted the apostles to choose his replacement as it is written in the book of Acts. Another difference is the fact that John and James are moved ahead of Andrew which is in the first group of four. Thomas is moved into the second spot of the second group of four rather than in the last spot of that group. Matthew was also moved into the last position of that second group rather than in the third spot.[|[2]] Simon is named “the Zealot” in both Luke and Acts, however, he is called “Simon the Cananaean” in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:19. “Cananaean,” which is representative of the Hebrew and Aramaic words, is similar to the Greek word “Zealot.”[|[3]] Luke also included a couple women which is consistent with his showing the importance of women in his writings.[|[4]] In this section of Acts, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned, although this is the only time she is ever mentioned in Acts. Not only did Mary give birth to the Son of Man, but she also helped out with the birth of the church. Ajith Fernando said in his commentary that “the undue veneration of her by some should not hinder us from appreciating the important role she played in the history of salvation.”[|[5]] These differences, although they may seem small, are there for a reason and may have more meaning than one might think.

Did Luke just forget the order of the apostles as he had written it in the book of Luke? So he tried to remember it as best as he could, but made some mistakes? No. Luke switched some of the names around, and pushed others back in a way that it seems like the apostles that were pushed forward are more prominent in the book of Acts than they were previously. It has been suggested that the reason James is after John in order is to reduce his importance and to increase the significance of James the brother of Jesus. Another probable switch is that of John’s name which is brought forward; it is because of his association with Peter in the beginning of Acts that he is more prominent, and mention, and thus brought forward.[|[6]] Another suggestion for the meaning of the differences between the lists of the apostles in Luke and Acts is because a new era had risen. This was a symbolic way of Jesus showing that there is a restructuring of Israel. The old Israel was not doing what God had wanted, and they weren’t responding properly. Jesus, who was sent by God, was the key of the needed reorganization, and through His direction, guidance and ministry, Israel would be on the right track.[|[7]] Although that is a good possibility, it is more widely accepted that the more prominent apostles in the book of Acts were pushed forward.

While the names of the apostles in each of the four gospels differ, the order of the names in the book of Acts most closely resembles the order in Luke. While it is true that some apostles are more prominent in the book of Acts than they were before and are therefore pushed ahead of other apostles, one of the main differences is the omission of Judas Iscariot. The apostles, after Judas’ suicide, needed to replace him, which led to the event immediately following the list in Acts chapter 1, in order to have twelve apostles; this, in turn, would show that the twelve tribes of Israel still had hope redemption.

Bibliography

Barrett, C.K. //A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles:// New York, NY: T & T Clark International, 2004. Bock, Darrell L. //Acts//: Grand Rapid, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Bruce, F. F. //Commentary on the Book of Acts:// Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973. Fernando, Ajith. //The NIV Application Commentary: Acts//: Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Johnson, Luke Timothy. //The Acts of the Apostles//: Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

[|[1]] Luke Timothy Johnson, //The Acts of the Apostles// (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 34. [|[2]] Darrel L. Bock, //Acts// (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). [|[3]] F. F. Bruce, //Commentary on the Book of Acts// (Grand Rapids: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 43. [|[4]] Ajith Fernando, //The NIV Application Commentary// (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 73. [|[5]] Ibid, 74. [|[6]] C.K. Barrett, //A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles// (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 87. [|[7]] Darrell L. Bock, //Acts// (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

media type="custom" key="9723658"

media type="custom" key="9723660"