Calling His Disciples (part 10)

In this area, Luke’s record is similar while also being different.  Like Matthew, Luke does not editorialize here, as does Mark, and so does not offer up the reasoning behind the calling and appointment of the twelve, which Mark says was “so that they could be with Him and He could send them to preach” (Mark 3:14b).  He takes Matthew’s route of relying upon the Abrahamic covenant context and communicating that similarity by reporting that “Jesus called the twelve together” (9:1a).  As was said for Matthew, this is equivalent to Mark’s “being with Him,” while also communicating the appropriate Abraham-related ideas. 

Luke’s “sending” of the disciples also differs from that of Matthew, in that there is no national, ethnic, or geographic restriction to Israel in their exemplification of divine blessing when “He gave them power over all demons and to cure diseases” (9:1b).  That said, it is worthwhile to take the time to notice that Matthew’s and Luke’s record operate on a dual level.  At one level, as they report the instructions of Jesus, they are also provide information as to what it was that these disciples were going to go out and do.  There is no reason to believe that they did not go out and follow these instructions, and indeed Luke, ever the historian in his own way, moves from Jesus’ instructions to mentioning that “Then they departed and went throughout the villages, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere” (9:6). 

Shortly thereafter, again playing the historian, Luke reports that “When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done” (9:10).  Luke even expands upon this in relation to the time that Jesus, at the beginning of the tenth chapter, appoints and sends out a much larger group of His disciples with nearly identical instructions as that which was given to the twelve (either seventy or seventy-two disciples, depending on the early manuscripts in use---seventy is more likely to be the correct number as it would fit with Israel’s historical narrative and Moses’ appointment of seventy elders, though the translation in use for this study uses seventy-two), informing his audience that “the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!” (10:17)  Though the analogy is not precise, if the Abrahamic covenant is foundational, then the twelve can be looked upon in a way as Abraham, while the seventy-two can be looked upon as Israel.  At the second level, the instructions to the disciples are something of an elaboration on the words that had been spoken to Abraham by the Creator God.  When Matthew and Luke are heard recounting Jesus’ instructions to His disciples, can one not also hear “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing”? (Genesis 12:2) 

Luke rounds out Jesus’ instructions very quickly.  For Luke’s purposes in this setting, Jesus is done speaking at the fifth verse of his ninth chapter, concluding His remarks with the “shaking of dust.”  Matthew, on the other hand, extends this time of instruction all the way to the close of that which would eventually come to be recognized as the tenth chapter of his Gospel.  In fact, the eleventh chapter of Matthew opens by informing the reader that “When Jesus had finished instructing His twelve disciples, He went on from there to teach and preach in their towns” (11:1).  Though the fact that the disciples acted on Jesus’ instructions is implied by Matthew’s presentation, Luke seizes upon the opportunity to make it explicit.  Though Matthew certainly implies that the disciples fulfilled the Abrahamic call to exemplify divine blessing, Luke wants to be sure that his audience knows that this is indeed what took place.     

Calling His Disciples (part 8)

The fact that only two of the disciples specifically called by Jesus are said to have left their father is irrelevant to the larger point that is being made.  The simple mention of leaving their father, when called by the one that is worshiped as the embodiment of the Creator God by the community that is hearing the story, creates an Abrahamic frame of reference that can be comfortably applied to the rest of the callings.  In this Abrahamic light then, one can take a moment to stretch the analogy just a bit further, calling attention to the fact that James and John are said to have taken the action to leave their father together. 

The call of Abraham, according to the Genesis narrative, was to “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household.”  However, those that know the Abraham story know that Abraham took his nephew Lot with him.  So even though these two disciples (James and John), unlike Abraham, did indeed make the difficult decision to leave their father (Zebedee), that decision was made a little bit easier, as each man did so in conjunction with his brother.  The fact that the first four called disciples are said to have been business partners, at least according to Luke, probably made the decision to leave their occupations and to follow Jesus just slightly less tenuous.

Is the call from Jesus to follow Him, combined with an account of leaving a father behind the extent of the similarities to the call of Abraham?  Of course not.  That would hardly be enough of a basis from which to build a credible argument.  Considering that the covenant God’s redemptive plan for His creation begins with Abraham, climaxes with Jesus and is to be continually carried out through His disciples through the time of the consummation of His kingdom and beyond, there must be far more points of contact between the Abrahamic covenant and the call to discipleship.  Fortunately, there are. 

Returning to Mark’s Gospel then and venturing to the third chapter, it is there found that Jesus “appointed twelve (whom He named apostles), so that they could be with Him and He could send them to preach and to have authority to cast out demons.  He appointed twelve” (3:14-16a).  The duplication of “appointed twelve” could easily be heard as an emphasizing of the re-gathering of the twelve tribes of Israel.  As the Creator God ordained Israel to be a light to the nations, so too Jesus has ordained twelve to the same end.  Naturally, any implicit references to the Creator God’s covenant with Israel also carries with it an implicit reference to the Abrahamic covenant, as there is no Israel without Abraham, and there would be no Mosaic covenant without the Abrahamic covenant. 

So in coming to understand the Abrahamic mental triggers that would be pulled by the appointment of twelve, one can  then make a rather broad analysis based on what it is that Mark says next.  If the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are in mind when Mark writes “so they would be with Him and He could send them,” then this is yet another recapitulation of the long-standing charge to Israel, for the Creator God had promised Israel that He would dwell among them if they were faithful to the obligation to carry out His commandments.  Ultimately, this dwelling among them would be for the purpose of their revealing His glory to all peoples.  Certainly this can be seen as Israel both being with their God and being sent by their God.  If that is the case, then one is forced to revert further to that which is foundational to Israel’s relationship with their God, which is the promise to Abraham.