Mark 3:19

Bartholomew. Literally, “son of Talmai” (cf. Num. 13:22; 2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37). Nathanael was probably his own personal name. The Synoptic Gospels make no mention of Nathanael, and the Gospel of John says nothing of Bartholomew. John mentions Nathanael, together with others of the Twelve, in a setting where it seems that none but disciples of the inner circle of twelve were present (see ch. 21:2). Thus there is no valid reason for doubting that the two names Bartholomew and Nathanael refer to the same person. It was Philip who introduced his friend Nathanael to Jesus (see John 1:45); apparently the two men were close friends (cf. DA 293).

Matthew. Mark and Luke refer to Matthew as Levi (see on Mark 2:14). It seems improbable that Alphaeus the father of Matthew is to be identified with Alphaeus who was the father of James. The two disciples are never associated together in the Gospels as if they were brothers, as are Peter with Andrew and James with John. Matthew proved to be a capable worker. According to tradition he devoted his energies, after the resurrection, largely to work for his fellow countrymen, and may have labored in Ethiopia or in the region about the Black Sea.

Thomas. Also called Didymus (see John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). Both names mean “twin.” Tradition has it that his given name was Judas (a common Hebrew name). All that is known of Thomas is recorded in the Gospel of John (see chs. 11:16; 14:5; 20:24-29; 21:2). Although he showed himself to be doubting and selfish at times (see John 20:24, 25), yet on other occasions he was brave and loyal (see ch. 11:16). He is said to have labored in Parthia and Persia. A less certain tradition has Thomas in India and China.

In southern India there is a group of indigenous Christians who have been known for centuries as Thomas Christians. They have in their possession a version of the gospel story said to have been handed down to them by the apostle Thomas. They claim that Thomas suffered martyrdom on an eminence known as St. Thomas’ Mount, near Madras. There was also a Jewish missionary by the name of Thomas who labored in China, and whose picture has been preserved in stone, together with an inscription that, freely translated, reads: “Thomas came and labored with singleness of heart and great zeal. If all the good he did were to be recorded, one would have to dip his pen in Tungting Lake [a large lake in China] until the lake was dried up [in order to have sufficient water to make the necessary amount of ink].” This interesting picture of Thomas has distinctly Jewish features, but probably is not that of Thomas the apostle.

James. Distinguished from James the son of Zebedee as James the son of Alphaeus. There seems to be good reason to believe him to be the James mentioned in Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10. The expression “James the less,” or literally, “James the little” (Mark 15:40), probably refers to him as such in the sense of “James the younger” (see on Ps. 115:13), or possibly the expression was used because he was of short stature.

Some have attempted to identify James the son of Alphaeus with James the brother of our Lord (see Matt. 13:55), but this suggestion is so extremely improbable as to be almost unworthy of notice. James the disciple was a follower of Christ at least from the time when the Twelve were appointed, about the summer of A.D. But as late as six months before the crucifixion the brothers of Jesus are said not to have believed in Him (see John 7:5). Even the setting of Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 implies that the incident there referred to occurred about the time of the Third Galilean Tour, certainly after the selection of the Twelve. See on Acts 12:17.

Thaddaeus. Identified by Matthew (see ch. 10:3) as Lebbaeus. An ancient tradition, against which no evidence has been offered, equates Thaddaeus with Judas the son of James (see Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). It is quite clear from other examples that this Judas was not the brother but the son of a man named James, although the Greek text of Luke 6:16 reads simply “Judas of James.” Almost certainly this James, the father of Thaddaeus or Judas, is not to be identified with any other James of the NT, for the name was very common (see on Mark 3:17). Where John (see ch. 14:22) refers to this Judas he clearly distinguishes him from Judas Iscariot. Thaddaeus does not appear as prominently in the NT records as do most of the other apostles.

Simon. Called “the Canaanite” to distinguish him from Simon Peter. Concerning the meaning and derivation of the name Simon see on v. 16. The designation “Canaanite” does not necessarily mark Simon as descended from one of the Canaanite nations that inhabited the land of Palestine prior to the coming of the Hebrews (see on Gen. 10:6). Many other ancient manuscripts refer to him as “the Cananaean,” which means either an inhabitant of the city of Cana, or, more likely, a member of a Jewish patriotic party also known as the Zealots (see Luke 6:15; p. 54; cf. DA 96).

Judas Iscariot. The NT name Judas is equivalent to the OT Judah (see on Gen. 29:35; Matt. 1:2). Many explanations have been given of the name Iscariot, the most probable of which is that it is from the Hebrew ’ish Qeriyyoth, meaning “man of Kerioth,” a village of southern Judea near Idumaea (see Joshua 15:25; see on Mark 3:8). If this identification of the name Iscariot be correct, Judas was probably the only one of the Twelve not a native of Galilee. He was the son of a man named Simon (see on John 6:71).

Jesus had not summoned Judas to join the group of disciples from which He selected the Twelve (see on Mark 3:13), but Judas intruded among them and asked for a place. Judas doubtless believed Jesus to be the Messiah — like the other disciples, in terms of the popular Jewish conception of a political deliverer from the yoke of Rome — and desired membership in the inner circle of disciples in order to secure a high position in the “kingdom” soon to be established. Perhaps he volunteered for the position of treasurer, hoping for appointment to that office in the new kingdom. However, Jesus realized from the very first that Judas was lacking in those basic traits that would qualify him to become an apostle of the kingdom that was to be established.

In spite of all the evil latent in the heart of Judas, he was in many respects more promising than the others Jesus called. When admitted to membership with the Twelve, Judas was not beyond hope. The nurture and development of certain desirable traits of character, together with the elimination of the evil traits, might have made of him an acceptable worker in the cause of the kingdom. But, unlike John (see on v. 17), Judas steeled his heart against the precepts and example of Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus gave him every encouragement and every opportunity to develop a heavenly character. The “bruised reed” of Judas’ character, the “smoking flax” of good intentions, Jesus would not break or quench (see on Matt. 12:20).

Betrayed him. See on Luke 6:16.