(2) A comparison of the four lists of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13) brings out some interesting facts. (1.) The name of Peter is always first, that of Judas always last. In the former case we recognise acknowledged preeminence. The position of the latter may have been the consequence of the infamy which attached to the name of the traitor; but it is possible (and this may have been one of the elements that entered into his guilt) that his place had always been one of inferiority.

(2.) All the lists divide themselves into three groups of four, the persons in each group being always the same (assuming that the three names, Judas the brother (?) of James, Thaddaeus, and Lebbaeus, belong to the same person), though the order in each group varies.

(3.) The first group includes the two sons of Jona and the two sons of Zebedee, whose twofold call is related in Matthew 4:18-21, John 1:40. In two lists (Mark and Acts) the name of Andrew stands last; in two (Matt. and Luke) that of John. In none of them are the names of Peter and John coupled together, as might have been expected from their close companionship (John 20:2; Acts 3:1). The four obviously occupied the innermost place in the company of the Twelve, and were chosen out of the chosen. The three, Peter, James, and John, were the only witnesses of the healing of Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and of the Agony in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37). Something seems to have excluded Andrew, though he had been the first called of all (John 1:40), from this intimate companionship; but we find him joined with the other three as called to listen to the great prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3). All the four appear to have come from Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

(4.) The name of Philip is always first in the second group, and he, too, came from Bethsaida. Next, in the three Gospel lists, comes that of Bartholomew. The name, like Barjona and Bartimaeus, was obviously a patronymic, and it was at least probable that he had some other name. The absence of any mention of Bartholomew in St. John's Gospel, or of Nathanael (John 1:45) in the other three, has led most modern commentators to the conclusion that they were two names for the same person; and the juxtaposition of the two names in their lists agrees with the fact that it was Philip who brought him to know Jesus as the Christ (John 1:45). On this assumption, Bartholomew was of Cana, the scene of our Lord's first miracle (John 21:2). The name of Matthew stands before that of Thomas in Mark and Luke, after it in the Gospel which beare his own name. On the change of name from Levi, and his description as the son of Alphaeus, see Notes on Matthew 9:9. As the name of Thomas, or Didymus, means "twin," there seems some ground for believing, from the way in which the two names are grouped together, that here too we have another pair of brothers called to the service of their Master. Eusebius (H. E. i. 13), in his account of the conversion of Abgarus of Edessa, speaks of this Apostle as "Judas who is also Thomas." and this suggests the reason why the cognomen of "the Twin" prevailed over the name which was already borne by two out of the company of the Twelve.

(5.) The third group always begins with "James the son of Alphaeus;" and this description suggests some interesting inferences:--(1.) That he too was a brother of Matthew (there are no grounds for assuming two persons of the name of Alphaeus), and probably, therefore, of Thomas also. (2.) That if the Clopas (not Cleopas) of John 19:25, was, as is generally believed, only the less Graecised form of the name Alphaeus, then his mother Mary may have been the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord (see Notes on John 19:25). (3.) This Mary, in her turn, is identified, on comparing John 19:25 with Mark 15:40, with the mother of James the Less (literally, the Little) and of Joses. The term probably pointed, not to subordinate position, but, as in the case of Zacchaeus, to short stature, and appears to have been an epithet (Luke 19:3) distinguishing him from the James of the first list. The Greek form in both cases was Jacobus--the Jacob of the Old Testament--which has passed, like Joannes, through many changes, till it appears in its present clipped and curtailed shape. (4.) On the assumption that the James and Joses of Mark 15:40 are two of the "brethren of the Lord" of Matthew 13:55, this James might, perhaps, be identified with the James "the brother of the Lord" of Galatians 1:19 and Acts 15:13, the writer of the Epistle. The balance of evidence is, however, decidedly against this view. (Comp. Note on Matthew 13:55.) The next name appears in three different forms: Judas the brother of James (it must be noted, however, that the collocation of the two names is that which is elsewhere rendered "the son of . . ." and that the insertion of the word "brother" is an inference from Jude 1:1) in Luke and Acts; Lebbaeus in Matthew (with the addition, in later MSS. and the textus receptus, of "who is also surnamed Thaddaeus"); Thaddaeus in Mark; St. John names him simply as "Judas, not Iscariot" (Matthew 14:22). The explanation of the variations is natural enough. One who bore the name of Judas wanted something to distinguish him. This might be found either in the term which expressed his relation as son or brother to James the son of Alphaeus, or in a personal epithet. Lebbaeus suggests a derivation from the Hebrew leb (heart), and points to warmth and earnestness of character; thad, in later Hebrew, meant the female breast, and may have been the origin of Thaddaeus, as indicating, even more than the other sobriquet, a feminine devotedness. Taking the three names together, they suggest the thought that he was one of the youngest of the Twelve, and was looked upon by the others with an affection which showed itself in the name thus given to him. Simon, too, needed a distinguishing epithet, and it was found in the two forms of Zelotes and Cananite (not Canaanite). The former may point to zeal as his chief characteristic, but it was more probably used in the sense in which the followers of Judas of Galilee bore the name, and under which they were prominent in the later struggle with the Romans, as in a special sense "zealots for the law" (Jos. Wars, iv. 3, ? 9). (Comp. a like use of the word in Acts 21:20.) On this assumption we get a glimpse, full of interest, into the earlier life of the Apostle so named. The other term, Cananite--which is not a local term, but connected with a Hebrew verb, kana, to be hot, to glow, to be zealous--expresses the same idea. Lastly, we have "Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him," described by St. John as the "son of Simon" (John 6:71; John 12:4; John 13:2; John 13:26), the term "Iscariot" being applied in the first and last of these passages to the father. These facts seem to leave little doubt that the name is local, and is the Graecised form of Ish-Kerioth (a man of Kerioth), a town in Judah mentioned in the list of Joshua 15:25. Assuming this inference, we have in him the only one among the Twelve of whom it is probable that he was of Judah, and not of Galilee. This also may not have been without its influence on his character, separating him, as it might well tend to do, from the devoted loyalty of the others.

Verses 2-4. - THE NAMES OF THE AGENTS. Parallel passages: Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16 (cf. Acts 1:13). This Commentary upon St. Luke deals so fully both with the list as a whole and with the separate names that it will not be necessary to say much here. Observe that the general agreement in arrangement points to some common basis underlying all four accounts; also that of these the one found in the Acts is the briefest, giving little more than the bare names; and that that found in our Gospel, on the contrary, is the fullest, containing, with two exceptions (vide infra), the details mentioned in one or other of the parallels, and adding two of its own. It mentions, in one instance or more, the parentage (Zebedee, Alphaeus), the relationship ("his brother... his brother"), the birthplace (Kerioth), the earlier occupation and religious standpoint ("publican... Zealot"), and, with a bare hint at the beginning (vide infra), but a clear statement at the end, the after-history ("first... who also betrayed him") of the apostles. The two omissions are the fact that our Lord added the names of Peter (parallels, but really given earlier, John 1:42) and Boanerges (Mark). Verse 2. - Now the names, In the parallels part of the word "names" is found as a verb, "whom also he named apostles;" i.e. the naming there refers, not to the individuals, but to their office. Is the form found in our Gospel an "accidental" rearrangement due to a reminiscence that the word "name" occurred in the earliest source, or is it possible that the two facts are connected, and that the individuals received a new name when they definitely entered on a new office? That they should have received a new name seems a priori not improbable, but the evidence is very slight. "Peter" is a clear case, for though the name was given earlier, it would receive a new application now, and perhaps was now again expressly given (cf. parallel passages); and other cases may be St. Matthew (vide Introduction, p. 21.) and possibly St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddaeus. Mark expressly says that the term "Boanerges" was given to the sons of Zebedee; but as there is no evidence that either St. James or St. John was afterwards known by this name, it need not have been a name in the same sense in which the others were. Observe the formal order of the first words of this verse (τῶν δὲ δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματα ἐστιν ταῦτα). Did the author of the Gospel take them from the heading of a section that already contained the names in order? If so the δέ would probably not have existed there, and it is worth noting that the original hand of D, the manuscript that is of special value for Palestinian tradition, omits it. Of the twelve (ver. 1, note) apostles (ver. 5, note) are these: The first. This, perhaps, refers to the order of call, Luke 5:1 (Nosgen), but more probably to the leading position that St. Peter held among the twelve. On this leadership, cf. the fragmentary excursus by Bishop Lightfoot, printed in 'Clement of Rome,' 2. 487 (1890). Simon. His Hebrew name was Simeon (שמעון, Acts 15:14, and 2 Peter 1:1, in the Received Text and Westcott and Herr margin), but his Gentile name (Matthew 3:1, note) was Simon, this good Greek name being chosen as almost identical in sound. It occurs frequently in the Palestinian Talmud (סימון). Who is called Peter. In common Christian parlance (Matthew 4:18; cf. Matthew 16:18).

10:1-4 The word apostle signifies messenger; they were Christ's messengers, sent forth to proclaim his kingdom. Christ gave them power to heal all manner of sickness. In the grace of the gospel there is a slave for every sore, a remedy for every malady. There is no spiritual disease, but there is power in Christ for the cure of it. There names are recorded, and it is their honour; yet they had more reason to rejoice that their names were written in heaven, while the high and mighty names of the great ones of the earth are buried in the dust.Now the names of the twelve apostles are these,.... This is the first time these disciples are called "apostles", they were learners before; now being instructed, they are sent forth to preach publicly, and therefore are called apostles, or messengers, persons that were sent: so the elders of the priesthood are called , "the apostles", or messengers "of the sanhedrim" (n), to whom the high priest were delivered, before the day of atonement. So six months in the year, "apostles", or messengers, were sent by the (o) sanhedrim, throughout all the land of Israel, and to the captive Jews in other parts, to give notice of the new moon; in allusion to which, the disciples might be so called. It was proper to give the names of them, for the truth of the history, and confirmation of it; for the sake of the persons themselves, and the honour done them; and for the exclusion and detection of false apostles.

The first, Simon, who is called Peter; his pure Hebrew name was Simeon, as he is called, Acts 15:14 but in the then Jerusalem dialect, and in Rabbinical language, this name is frequently read and pronounced "Simon", as here: we often read of R. Simon, and of R. Juda bar Simon, in both Talmuds (p). This apostle is also called Peter, to distinguish him from Simon the Canaanite, and which signifies a stone, or rock, in allusion to the object of his faith, and the steadiness of it. He is said to be the "first"; not that he was the head of the rest of the apostles, or had any primacy, dominion, and authority over them; but because he was first called, and was the first that was to open the door of faith to the Gentiles: but chiefly he is said to be so for order's sake; for, some one in the account must be named first, and he as proper as any:

and Andrew his brother; who was called at the same time with him, and therefore are put together. This name is also to be met with in the Talmudic writings; see Gill on Matthew 4:18.

James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; these two were called next and together, and therefore are placed in this order: the former is so called, to distinguish him from another James, the son of Alphaeus, after mentioned; and the latter is the beloved disciple; these were surnamed "Boanerges", that is, "sons of thunder".

(n) Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 5. (o) Misn. Roshhashana, c. 1. sect. 3. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (p) T. Hieros. Shekalim, fol. 46. 4. Bab. Sabbath, fol. 55. 1. & Bava Kama, fol. 47. 2.