‘Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the public servant; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.'
In Matthew 9:37-38 the prayer of all the disciples had to be for the sending out of labourers into the harvest, but such prayer is always dangerous. For the one who prays in this way very soon finds himself involved. Thus we are now given the names of the first to be ‘sent out', the twelve Apostles (apostoloi - sent out ones). It is clear from this that Jesus has already chosen out twelve whom He sees as ready for the task. They are a mixed bunch but mainly, if not all, Galileans.
They include among them at least four fishermen, an ex-public servant and a fervent nationalist, a ‘Cananaean' (a ‘zealous one', even more fervent than the general run of nationalists). But even in naming them the dark shadow that lies ahead is brought out. Among them was one who would one day betray Him.
It is tempting to see these pairings as indicating the twosomes (Mark 6:7) in which they would first go out, although later these may have varied (compare the pairing of Peter and John in Acts). It is possible that of all the Gospel writers, apart from John, Matthew was the only one who knew of the initial pairings. Mark places Andrew after John and James, rather than after Peter, and places Matthew before Thomas. Otherwise his list is the same. We may have in this a small pointer to Matthew's connection with the writing of this Gospel, especially as only here is it mentioned in the lists that he was a public servant (Luke also places Matthew before Thomas). In his humility he here places his companion first. Luke's list is not too different. He follows Matthew's order for the first six, switches Thomas and Matthew, and puts ‘Simon the Zealot' with James the son of Alphaeus, and Judas the son of James (Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus) with Judas Iscariot, possibly to bring the two named Judas together (the contrast of the good and the bad). Judas the son of Alphaeus probably changed his name to Thaddaeus after the other Judas had brought shame on the name, although it may have been when he was first converted, a new beginning requiring a new name. It should, however, be noted that there are some manuscript differences with regard to a few of these later names, although not important ones.
‘Apostles'. The significance of this term is an official appointee and representative who has been sent out to perform a function. The function of these Apostles will now be described. It is to proclaim the Kingly Rule of Heaven, to cast out evil spirits and to heal the sick and diseased, demonstrating the presence of God's Kingly Rule among them.
‘The first, Peter.' This may simply indicate that he is first mentioned, but in view of the fact that he always comes first in the lists of Apostles, and certainly takes the lead in Acts, we may see it as indicating more than that. But in view of the way in which the working together of the twelve as a whole is emphasised in Acts, it must be seen as meaning ‘first among equals', a situation partly resulting from his impetuous nature and the special confidence that Jesus had placed in Peter, James and John in the cases of Jairus' daughter, the Transfiguration and the Garden of Gethsemane. ‘First among equals' was a phrase which would centuries later become important when the church had to withstand the exaggerated claims of a much later Bishop of Rome. It was the attitude of these later Bishops of Rome, as they would seek to gain pre-eminence contrary to all that Jesus had taught, that would cause the division in the church that still exists today.
The suggestion that the twelve divide into three fours headed by Peter, Philip and James the son of Alphaeus has little merit. There is certainly no evidence for it elsewhere, and it would seem surprising if at least one out of James and John, who were selected out with Peter by Jesus for special duties, should not have held a position of leadership if such a division was to be made. On the other hand divisions into two are witnessed to by Mark. After Acts 15 all the Apostles disappear from history, including Peter apart from his letters, although later references which put him on a parallel with Paul in the eyes of the Roman church as a martyr, may point to him as having visited Rome. There is, however, no solid evidence that he did so. On the other hand it must seem probable. Impetuous Peter would surely want to see the church which existed at the centre of the Roman Empire. But in those days there was no such thing as a sole bishop of Rome, or even a pre-eminent one. The Roman church had a number of bishops of equal standing. Thus to speak of Peter as ever having been ‘the Bishop of Rome' is unhistorical, although along with Paul he might well have been made temporarily one of the bishops of the church if he was ever in Rome for a period of time. But it is nowhere stressed until centuries had passed. It was certainly never anything that he could pass on.
However, in considering this question of the Apostles we must recognise that Jesus chose these men for the qualities that He saw in them, and that in the first part of Acts they are seen as ministering powerfully. And we must remember that apart from Acts we know nothing about the early church at all, thus it is totally unreasonable to judge them from silence. Certainly in the first part of Acts they played a full part, including incidentally Matthias. (See our commentary on Acts).