Strictly speaking, therefore, it is merely presupposed in the gospels, that Jesus himself fixed the number of the apostles. Is this presupposition correct? There certainly is little doubt that this number was fixed during the lifetime of Jesus; for not only does the author of the Acts represent the twelve as so compact a body immediately after the ascension of their master, that they think it incumbent on them to fill up the breach made by the apostasy of Judas by the election of a new member ([i. 15 ff.]); but the Apostle Paul also notices an appearance of the risen Jesus, specially to the twelve ([1 Cor. xv. 5]). Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself chose the twelve, and he thinks it more probable that the peculiar relation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples, gradually and spontaneously formed itself.[46] We have, indeed, no warrant for supposing that the appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act; on the contrary, the gospels explicitly narrate, that six of them were called singly, or by pairs, and on separate occasions; but it is still a question whether the number twelve was not determined by Jesus, and whether he did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking the multiplication of his familiar companions. The number is the less likely to have been fortuitous, the more significant it is, and the more evident the inducements to its choice by Jesus. He himself, in promising the disciples ([Matt. xix. 28]) that they shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, gives their number a relation to that of the tribes of his people; and it was the opinion of the highest Christian antiquity that this relation determined his choice.[47] If he and his disciples were primarily sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ([Matt. x. 6], [xv. 24]), it might seem appropriate that the number of the shepherds should correspond to that of the shepherdless tribes ([Matt. ix. 36]).
The destination of the twelve is only generally intimated in [John (xv. 16)]; in Mark, on the contrary, it is particularly, and without doubt accurately, stated. He ordained twelve, it is here said, that they should be with him, that is, that he might not be without companionship, aid, and attendance on his journeys; and accordingly we find them helpful to him in procuring lodgings ([Luke ix. 32]; [Matt. xxvi. 17 f.]), food ([John iv. 8]), and other travelling requisites ([Matt. xxi. 1 ff.]); but above all they were in his society to become scribes well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven ([Matt. xiii. 52]). To this end they had the opportunity of being present at most of the discourses of Jesus, and even of obtaining private elucidations of their meaning ([Matt. xiii. 10 ff.], [36 ff.]); of purifying their minds by his severe but friendly discipline ([Matt. viii. 26], [xvi. 23], [xviii. 1 ff.] [21 ff.]; [Luke ix. 50], [55 f.]; [John xiii. 12 ff.] etc.), and of elevating their souls by the contemplation of his example ([John xiv. 19]). Another motive of Jesus in choosing the twelve, was, according to Mark, that he might send them forth to preach, that is, to preach the kingdom of heaven during his life, according to the immediate meaning of Mark; but the promulgation of his cause after his death, must be supposed as an additional object on the part of Jesus. (Mark proceeds to enumerate the powers [[325]]of healing and of casting out devils; but on these points we cannot dilate until we reach a future stage of our inquiry.)
It was this latter destination that won for them the distinguished name of apostles, ἀπόστολοι ([Matt. x. 2]; [Mark vi. 30]; [Luke vii. 13], etc.). It has been doubted whether Jesus himself conferred this name on the twelve, according to [Luke vi. 13], and it has been suggested that it was not given them until later, ex eventu.[48] But that Jesus should have called them his envoys cannot be improbable, if he really sent them on a journey to announce the approaching kingdom of the Messiah. We grant that it is possible to regard this journey as an event transposed from the period after the death of Jesus to his lifetime, in order that a sort of rehearsal of the subsequent mission of the apostles might pass under the eye of Jesus; but as it is not improbable that Jesus, perhaps even before he had a full conviction of his own Messiahship, sent out messengers to announce the Messiah’s kingdom, we are not warranted to urge such a doubt.
John knows nothing of this mission, recorded by the synoptists. On the other hand, they are ignorant of a circumstance alleged by John, namely, that the disciples baptized during the life of Jesus ([iv. 2]). According to the synoptical Evangelists, it was not until after the resurrection, that Jesus gave his disciples authority to baptize ([Matt. xxviii. 19], parall.). As, however, the rite of baptism was introduced by John, and we have reason to believe that Jesus, for a time, made that teacher his model, it is highly probable that he and his disciples also practised baptism, and hence that the positive statement of the fourth gospel is correct. But the negative statement that Jesus himself baptised not ([iv. 2]), has the appearance of an after-thought, intended to correct the import of the previous passages ([iii. 22], [iv. 1]), and is most probably to be accounted for by the tendency of the fourth gospel to exalt Jesus above the Baptist, and by a corresponding dread of making Jesus exercise the function of the mere forerunner. The question whether Jesus did not baptize at least the apostles, afterwards occasioned much demur in the church.
With the exception of the mission mentioned above, the gospels speak of no important separation between Jesus and his twelve disciples, for there is nothing certain to be gathered from the resumption of their business after his death ([John xxi. 2 ff.]). No one could detect in our gospels any indications of a repeated interruption to the intercourse of Jesus with his disciples, but theologians, whose harmonistic zeal wished to find room for a second and third vocation; or expositors, who, in their unwearied application to details, cast about for a means of subsistence for so many indigent men, and thought it necessary to suppose that they were occasionally provided for by a return to their secular labours. As to the subsistence of Jesus and his disciples, we have sufficient sources for it in the hospitality of the East, which, among the Jews, was especially available to the rabbins; in the companionship of rich women who ministered unto him of their substance ([Luke viii. 2 f.]); and finally in the γλωσσόκομον, mentioned, it is true, only by the fourth Evangelist ([xii. 6], [xiii. 29]), which was ample enough to furnish assistance to the poor, as well as to supply the wants of the society, and in which, it is probable, presents from wealthy friends of Jesus were deposited. They who do not hold these means adequate without the labour of the disciples, or who think, on more general grounds, that the total renunciation of their secular employment on the part of the twelve, is improbable, must not try to force their opinion on the Evangelists, who by the stress which they lay on the expression [[326]]of the apostles, we have left all ([Matt. xix. 27 ff.]), plainly intimate the opposite view.
We gather, as to the rank of the twelve disciples of Jesus, that they all belonged to the lower class: four, or perhaps more ([John xxi. 2]), were fishermen, one a publican, and for the others, it is probable from the degree of cultivation they evince, and the preference always expressed by Jesus for the poor πτωχοὺς, and the little ones, νηπίους ([Matt. v. 3], [xi. 5], [25]), that they were of a similar grade.
§ 74.
THE TWELVE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. THE THREE OR FOUR MOST CONFIDENTIAL DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
We have in the New Testament four catalogues of the apostles; one in each of the synoptical gospels, and one in the Acts ([Matt. x. 2–4]; [Mark iii. 6–10]; [Luke vi. 14–16]; [Acts i. 13]). Each of these four lists may be divided into three quaternions; in each corresponding quaternion the first member is the same; and in the last, the concluding member also, if we except [Acts i. 13], where he is absent: but the intermediate members are differently arranged, and in the concluding quaternions there is a difference of names or of persons.