Smoodock's Blog

In recent studies we’ve learned that the Jewish authorities had set Jesus disciples up for a fall. During Jesus recent visit to Jerusalem at the beginning of his third year of public ministry, Jesus had healed a man who was born blind (John 9:1-38), a thing which blackened the eye of his enemies, the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem. Is it any wonder, then, that they sought to embarrass Jesus before he returned to Galilee with his disciples (cp. Mark 9:14)? It seems that they used a man’s care for his young boy to challenge Jesus’ disciples, while he wasn’t with them. A rabbi’s duty to his disciples was to make them into men like himself. Of course, the authorities wanted the disciples to fail, so they could expose Jesus as a poor teacher, thus belittling and embarrassing both him and his disciples. However, Jesus turned the tables on his enemies and healed the young boy, whose dangerous condition had existed since infancy (cp. Mark 9:21, 25-27). Nevertheless, Jesus’ disciples still felt humiliated and wondered why they couldn’t heal the boy (Mark 9:28).

On their return trip to Galilee, the disciples were in a heated discussion about who among themselves was the greatest (Mark 9:33-34). Often when men feel small or after they’ve been humiliated and made the brunt of offensive puns and jests, they dream up scenarios of grandeur wherein they could soothe their damaged egos and make themselves feel better about who they are. Jesus’ disciples were such folks, and the occasion of their failure to heal the young lad is told by each of the Synoptics. The account shows they descended into blaming one another for their failure (Matthew 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46). The only other time that the text reveals they sought to make themselves appear prominent and important was at their final meal with Jesus, when he revealed he would be betrayed by one of them, vis-à-vis one of the Twelve (Luke 22:24, cp. verse-21).

Undoubtedly, their dispute was about which individual among them was the greatest, Yet, it is possible that this may not have been the case. Keep in mind that, when Jesus called the Twelve, he divided them into three groups of four men. Peter was the unnamed head of the first group, Philip of the second and James the Less was the leader of the third. This is understood in the texts that list the twelve Apostles by name (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-18; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13). A close study of the names would reveal that each list puts the disciples in a different order, except for three, Peter, Philip and James the Less (not counting Judas Iscariot who is always last for obvious reasons). Peter is always first, while Philip is always fifth and James is always in the nineth position. The names of the others always appear in different positions in the lists, but always under the same leader, vis-à-vis James, John and Andrew always follow Peter; Thomas, Matthew and Bartholomew always come after Philip, and Jude, Simon Zelotes and Judas always appear after James the Less.

The three lists of four suggest different responsibilities. For example, Philip brought the Hellenistic Jew to Andrew, not to Jesus, when the Hellenist wished to see Jesus, suggesting the first group had charge of who got to see Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus went to Philip to ask how the 5000 should be fed (John 6:5), suggesting his group was in charge of spending the group’s funds for Jesus’ ministry. However, the group headed by James the Less, was probably in charge of collecting and saving funds for Jesus’ ministry, because Judas carried the bag (John 13:29). Admittedly, all this is conjecture, except for how the names are listed, but the shoe seems to fit, and adds to the context of: “Who is the greatest?” In other words, whose ministry within the group was most important; which one wouldn’t fail to serve Jesus’ interests? We do the same thing when we’re critical of another denomination of Christianity. While it may be true that we all serve, “Who’s the greatest?”