Chapter # 3 Paragraph # 3 Study # 4
October 29, 2019
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(Download Audio)
(117)
Thesis: Jesus' "Group of Twelve" had four who "stood out" and Mark considered the reasons significant.
Introduction: In our last study, we saw that Jesus "made a group of Twelve" out of "those whom He wanted" to be a special unit to spearhead the preparation of His long-term, Kingdom development. The Old Testament makes it plain that the ultimate makeup of the Kingdom of God is to be such that the nation of Israel will be the dominant "kingdom" of all of the kingdoms of this world (Note
Revelation 21:24 where the final state of the Kingdom of God has "kings of the earth" bringing their glory into the New Jerusalem). That Jesus told these "Twelve", with the exception of the traitor, that they would sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (
Matthew 19:28) indicates that between Jesus and His throne, and the nation through which He will rule the over-all Kingdom of God, are "twelve thrones" upon which sit twelve men who laid the foundations of the "building of the Church", and there may actually be another "throne" in that mix because David may sit upon a throne above the Twelve (
Ezekiel 34:23).
In any case, the "Twelve" were specifically chosen by Jesus for high positions of service in His Kingdom, but four are highlighted by Mark and we are going to look into that "highlighting" this evening.
- I. The "One" of the Four Who is "Highlighted" in a Negative Light.
- A. At the end of the list Mark gives, Judas is given a special mention as the one who "gave Jesus up" in traitorous disbelief.
- B. This particular "highlighting" is negative; it assumes a general awareness of Judas as the one who delivered up Jesus to the Cross; and it makes it relatively clear that Jesus was not including him in the actual sense of being a "disciple" so that he also had no future in the Kingdom.
- II. The Other Three Are "Highlighted" in a Positive Sense.
- A. The "highlighting" of these three is done by Mark's recording of Jesus' assignment of different names to them.
- 1. The verb Mark used to indicate a change of names had a "typical" meaning in Mark's Gospel.
- a. The word is used nine times by Mark and the two times we find it in this paragraph are translators' aberrations ("surnamed" in the Authorized Version; "gave" in the NASB).
- b. The typical meaning is revealed in the six times the translators are consistent: it indicates someone "laying hands upon" someone else to effect a positive change in their condition (except for one reference -- 16:18 -- it is always Jesus laying hands upon someone with a physical defect that needs to be altered to be moved to the norm).
- c. The point is that Mark wrote that Jesus "laid a name on" Simon and the brothers, James and John.
- 2. This "laying a name upon" signifies a kind of fundamental change that is going to occur so that Peter, James, and John are going to be "altered" as to their present condition so as to be those who "fit" their prophetic descriptions as given in 1:16-20.
- a. Peter was, originally, a "Simon" and he was to become a "Peter".
- 1) Being a "Simon" was not a good thing.
- a) His "namesake" was the original Simeon of Leah.
- i. That original Simeon was named by his mother ostensibly because God had "heard" that she was "hated" and she wanted that "hatred" turned into "love" (Genesis 29:31-33).
- ii. Leah's mindset was that which governed the development of the demonic theology of first century Judaism: performance will turn "hate towards me" into "love for me".
- iii. This mindset was transmitted to this son with telling impact: he became one whose father said of him that he was an "instrument of cruelty" (Genesis 49:5) and was, later, omitted from the blessings of Jacob as given in Deuteronomy 33.
- b) This "original" characterization explains a lot about why Simon was such a glory hog; sensing his utter lack of qualification for being "beloved" (Luke 5:8) and yet longing to be held in esteem by those around him (Galatians 2:11-21).
- 2) Being "transfigured" into a "Peter" was a good thing.
- a) Strong's says the word translated "Peter" means "a piece of rock".
- b) If we but stick two changes into that definition we can see what it meant for Jesus to "lay upon him this name": "a piece of the Rock").
- c) As to the way this was shown in the record of Acts, we have a man who becomes the "main man" of the Church as to its "Jewishness" (apostle to the circumcision: Galatians 2:8) as well as the one chosen to move the Gospel into the realm of the uncircumcision.
- d) According to Jesus, Peter's main stumbling block was that he was a "son of Jonah": a man filled with antagonism and having no compassion for others.
- b. James and John were, originally, "sons of Zebedee" which may have some overtones of the "Zabdi" who was grandfather to Achan of Jericho notoriety.
- 1) In any case, this "laying of a name" upon James and John signaled what they were to become as His disciples.
- 2) Interestingly the "sons of thunder" only find this identity explained in the use of "thunder" in the New Testament as "the voice of God heard by men" (John 12:29 and nine references in The Revelation of Jesus Christ written by one of these "sons of thunder").
- 3) This is a clear example of the meaning of the "net mending" activities of these two when Jesus summoned them away from those kinds of "nets" into the "mending" of the nets of the "fishers of men".
- III. Mark's Overall Point.
- A. In the larger context, Mark is highlighting the only legitimate response to those who are confronted by John's "Jesus", the Mighty One: discipleship.
- B. In the lesser context, Mark is revealing that Jesus is going to fulfill His "prophecies" concerning His disciples by actually changing them according to His "prophetic names" for them.
