The Gospels have not preserved any statement by our Lord Himself as to His aim in .selecting a special group of disciples. That aim can be judged of only by the issue, for it is certain that what the Apostles proved to be, was what Jesus designed they should become. An account, indeed, is found in St. Mark's Gospel (3"), according to which the purpose of our Lord in choosing tliem was that they might be with Him and that He might send them forth to announce the approach of the Kingdom of God, endowed with the power to heal and to exor- cize. That this is a correct description so far as it goes cannot be doubted, but it cannot be said to embrace the full scope of our Lord's purpose. It defines His immediate rather than His ultimate end. Its horizon is that of the first journey on which the Apostles were sent, not that world-wide commission afterwards committed to them. Hence when we speak of the reasons which induced our Lord to select the Twelve, we must look to the work actually entrusted to them. That work
cannot be better described than by the words used by our Lord Himself to the Twelve on the eve of His death. He had been the envoy of the Father to earth. They were to be His envoys on earth. As He had interpreted the Father to men, so were they to interpret Him to men. Their chief, their supreme duty, was to bear witness to Him : to teach the world how He lived, what He said, what He wrought (Jn 17'«, Ac 1»).
A comparison has often been drawn between the disciples of Plato or of the Pharisees and the disciples of Jesus. And such "ot without auggestiveness. But a sagacious
mind discerns that the apostolate of Jesus Christ is a unique institution. The Apostles differ from, far more than they agree with, the disciples of any thinker or teacher. They stand by themselves, devoted to the performance of an unexampled task. No one but Jesus could have conceived such a task ; the Apostles were the fit instruments for its accompUshment.
It is a noteworthy circumstance that few writers have spent any time in describing the actual selec- tion of the Twelve. The silence of the Gospels on this point is only what was to be expected, but it is surprising that those writers of our Lord's life who have given the freest rein to their imagination in endeavouring to reproduce the .scenes of His career, have passed this event over as if it afforded no o))portunity for their skill. Yet what materials lay ready to their hand ! What were the senti- ments with which our Lord addressed Himself to the task? What was His appearance as He stood on the mountain side and called His fol- lowers to Him ? How did these followers feel as they perceived that He was about to make a choice among them ? Was there excitement among the crowd ? Was there strong desire on the part of many to be chosen ? Was there any discus.sion as to the principles He followed in the choice, or did reverence prevent all debate? Was there much disappointment when the number was completed ? AVas there surprise at the persons named? Not less instructive would be some knowledge of the sentiments of the Apostles when they stood to- gether for the first time in the presence of our Lord. What were their thoughts ? Were they filled with exultation ? Did they infer that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear ? Did they antici- pate a brilliant future for themselves ? Or were tliere those among them who retlectetl with humility on their unfitness to be the generals and statesmen of the new Kingdom ? Did it occur to even one of them that the choice just made was a fresh disclosure of the view taken by Jesus of the Kingdom of God and of the means by which it was to be extended ?
Who now were the objects of our Lord's choice ? With some of them we are already acquainted. Simon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, and Levi or Matthew are already known to us. So too possibly is Bartholomew (wh. see). Bartholomew is not a proper name, but means simply 'son of Tolmai,' and there is much probability in the opinion that he is to be.identified with Nathanael. These seven disciples our Lord must have known for some time. The remaining five names — Thomas, James the son of Alphseus, Simon the Zealot, Judas or LebbiEus or rhaddreus, and Judas Iscariot are new. How long they had been known to Jesus is not told us ; perhaps some of them had been in His company for several months. On the other hand, it is pos- sible that He may have chosen some of the Twelve without much if any personal knowledge, relying on that power to read the heart which He un- doubtedly possessed.
Who the Alphaeua was of whom James was a son (Mk 318) we cannot teU. There is no reason except the similarity of name for connecting him with the father of Levi ; and the assumption that he is the same person as Clopas is gratuitous. The force of the epithet CananEBan is not free from doubt ; the most likely meaning is that of zealot. But the sense of * zealot ' in turn is not perfectly clear. It may denote the political party known by that name ; it may, again, simply designate unusual devotion to a cause. Reflexion shows that this latter view has but scanty recommendation, and that the former has nearly everything in its favour. The Apostle who bears a triple name is commonly known as Jude. That there were two Judes among the Apostles is plain from the language of Jn \i'^~, where 'Judas not Iscariot' is mentioned. In two of the lists of the Apostles, those in l.uke (1>16) and Acts (l"), he is described as ' Judas of James ' ; that is almost certainly Judas the son not the brother of Jamts. lint who this James was is quite uncertain. In Mt VP and Mk ai^^ this Judas is called ThaddsBUS, or, according to the >\'estern text, LebbcBus ; and he wa.s probably known indilTerently a.s Judas or .as Thad-