Here is my next post in the series, Jesus in Space and Time. As you might have already guessed, these posts are the chapters of a newly drafted book of the same title which is now in the editing stage prior to publication. I am posting twice a week at the moment in order to work my way through the book as it nears publication. I will let you know when it is published and available for general consumption.
As we continue to explore Jesus in Space and Time, seeking to understand him in his cultural and temporal context, the kind of disciples he chose provides us with further insights into his radical departure from the religious norms of the first century.
Almost immediately after Jesus’ baptism which identified him to Israel as a divinely appointed rabbi, he began calling disciples to himself. But the disciples whom Jesus chose would have been a joke to the religious hierarchy of the day. As was outlined in the previous chapter, rabbis only selected the very best and brightest of those graduating from Bet Sefer (synagogue school). The more esteemed a rabbi was, the more important it was for him to ensure that only the most gifted students were admitted to his discipleship program. The quality of the disciples reflected the importance and calibre of the rabbi.
But Jesus deliberately and provocatively snubbed this whole elitist structure. Some of Jesus’ disciples were misfits and miscreants. Matthew was a tax collector based in Capernaum. Tax collectors were considered to be traitors to their people, working for the Romans and skimming profits for themselves on top of their tax collection. Simon ‘Zelotes’, by virtue of his nickname, appears to have been a zealot – belonging to a radical and often violent faction of Judaism that resisted Roman occupation through underground guerrilla warfare. Judas Iscariot is also thought by many to have belonged to the zealot movement, as his nickname ‘Iscariot’ references the zealot assassins, known as ‘scariot’. At least four of the twelve initial disciples were fishermen (Andrew, Simon Peter, James and John) with the added possibility that Thomas was also a fisherman.[1]
Jesus’ disciples were also well past the age when people were selected for discipleship. Under other rabbis, boys were enrolled as disciples at the age of twelve or thirteen. Boys who were overlooked at that age, (comprising the vast majority), were never given a second chance. By comparison, all twelve of the disciples of Jesus appear to have been adults who were already established in their various trades when he called them. They had long since missed their opportunity and would never have dared to imagine that they would be invited into discipleship at such a mature age.
Even more radical and shocking is the complete lack of formal rabbinic education of the disciples. There is a clear reference to this in Acts 4. Soon after the ascension of Jesus and the events of the day of Pentecost, the newly transformed Peter and John healed a lame man in the Temple courts and were subsequently arrested by the religious authorities for doing so. Peter’s powerful and articulate defence when they were brought before the Sanhedrin amazed the Jewish leaders, and we read:
“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished, and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13)
This reference to Peter and John being “unschooled, ordinary men” is significant. At the very least, it meant that they had not progressed beyond the early childhood education of Bet Sefer. It is even possible that they had not attended Bet Sefer at all or perhaps only for a few short years, as was sometimes the case with children from poor families. This was not uncommon for sons of fishermen. Fishing was one of the least skilled trades in the first century and some fisher families tended to live very simple, subsistent lives.[2] When other boys began attending Bet Sefer at the age of six, the sons of fishermen often began helping their fathers, initially working alongside their mother in cleaning fish, mending nets and selling fish in the market place, and eventually progressing to work alongside their father in the family boat. Thus, many boys who were born into fishing families missed out on even the basic childhood education of Bet Sefer.
The lowly stature of Jesus’ disciples cannot be overstated. This deliberate and shockingly unconventional selection of disciples continued throughout Jesus’ ministry. His band of disciples continued to grow from an initial twelve to at least seventy by the beginning of his final year of ministry (Luke 10), and it seems clear that some of these were women. In Luke 8 we read:
“After this, Jesus travelled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (Luke 8:1-3)
Two points are to be noted here. Firstly, three women are mentioned, along with “many others”. The grammatical construction of the sentence in question leaves no doubt that the “many others” refers specifically to women. Secondly, these women are mentioned in the same sentence as “the Twelve” as being a permanent part of his band of followers. They were “with him” as they went “from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.” This is an unequivocal description of formal discipleship. Only disciples of a rabbi travelled with the rabbi and lived and worked alongside him in his itinerant ministry.[3]The important financial support that these women contributed to Jesus’ ministry, described in verse 3, also accords with the kind of total commitment that disciples were expected to give to their rabbis.
Much later, as Jesus approached the time of his death, the anointing of his feet with perfume by Mary of Bethany as she sat at his feet listening to his teaching is also a strong indication that she was considered to be Jesus’ disciple. Only formally recognised disciples had the privilege of sitting at a rabbi’s feet in such an intimate manner while he taught.[4] The shocking nature of a rabbi having women disciples in first century Israel cannot be over-estimated. The Mishna (a sacred text of Halakhah – Jewish law) states that for a rabbi to teach a woman was “obscene”.[5]
The prominence of some of these women disciples Is also seen in the post-resurrection narratives. After his death, a group of women who had gone to the tomb on Sunday morning were the first to learn of the resurrection. This group consisted of “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and the others with them” (Luke 24:10). It was to these women disciples that the angelic announcement of Jesus’ resurrection was first given, and they were commissioned to take this news back to the other disciples.[6]
Significantly, these women had gone to the tomb to prepare their rabbi’s body for proper burial, as the body of Jesus had been interned hastily on the Friday evening without proper anointing, due to the approaching sabbath. That it was the women disciples who were undertaking this task adds further weight to their importance as disciples.
Intentional Divergence From Religious Norms
As each element of Jesus’ unorthodox selection of disciples emerges, we are confronted by the increasingly undeniable truth that Jesus was intentional in breaking many of the religious norms of his day. His blatant departure from the established ecclesiastical pathways and practices of first century discipleship were not mistakes or oversights on his part. He knew exactly what he was doing. Each unorthodox practice was deliberate and calculated:
- Proclaiming himself to be a rabbi, without formal training or ordination.
- Choosing disciples who were “unschooled, ordinary men” (Acts 4:13).
- Choosing disciples who had questionable pasts.
- Choosing disciples who were too old, according to accepted thinking.
- Perhaps most shocking of all at that time, allowing women to be his disciples!
Jesus was fully aware of the confrontational nature of each of these radical departures from tradition, and he was not surprised by the resulting outrage and opposition from the religious establishment. So, why did he do it? What was the point of his deliberate flouting of religious norms? Was he simply a non-conformist who enjoyed shaking up the status quo? No. Of course not. There was something much deeper going on. These outward nonconformities were indicative of a profound shifting of inner values and principles.
Jesus spoke about this relationship between outer structures and inner principles in his brief parable about wine and wineskins. He said:
“No one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.’” (Luke 5:37-38).[7]
In rejecting the long-held traditions of rabbis and their disciples, Jesus was effectively indicating that those old structures were no longer appropriate for the kind of leadership he was proposing for his new kingdom. The old, stiff wineskins would simply not be able to hold the new wine as it matured and expanded – wine which had a radically different flavour. New wineskins were required; flexible new leadership structures that reflected the radical new principles of his kingdom.
The unconventional practices of Jesus, outlined in this chapter, represent the introduction of new wineskins and the rejection of the old. The jarring outward nonconformities of his practice of discipleship were not merely a means of annoying the establishment. They were sending a powerful message: that the leadership model of the kingdom that Jesus was ushering in was profoundly different from anything the world had yet seen. A new wine was coming, and new wineskins were required. Jesus’ unconventional discipleship practices pointed to a revolutionary leadership model that was founded upon principles that were the antithesis of the values of the world.
It was a leadership model that was barely understood by anyone at first. Even Jesus’ disciples, after having lived and worked alongside their master for three years, still did not comprehend it at the end. Their incredulity at their rabbi’s humble foot washing during the last supper[8] reveals that the light of understanding had not yet been switched on for them. So radical was this leadership model, so counterintuitive and countercultural were its values and principles, that even after everything the disciples had seen and heard from their master, they were still largely in the dark.
But they would not remain ignorant for much longer. The light would soon be switched on. At the last supper, as he washed their feet and Peter strenuously objected, Jesus responded by saying, “You do not yet understand. But soon you will” (John 13:7).
There is a sense in which those words still apply to many within the Christian church today – even some in leadership. They do not yet understand. They still do not fully comprehend the profoundly radical model of leadership that Jesus intends for his church. It is a model that eschews the hierarchical elitism and positional authoritarianism of the world and embraces humility, self-sacrifice and servanthood.[9]
[1] For further discussion of the backgrounds of the disciples, see bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-were-twelve-disciples.
[2] Alicia J. Batten, “Fishing Economy in the Sea of Galilee”, Bible Odyssey website, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/places/related-articles/fishing-economy-in-the-sea-of-galilee/ accessed 5/1/2023
[3] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, IVP, 2008, p.192
[4] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, IVP, 2008, p.193
[5] Mishna Sotah 3.4, Sefaria, accessed 28 October 2021
[6] Luke 24:1-10
[7] Also Matthew 9:17 and Mark 2:22
[8] John 13:1-20
[9] For a full exploration of this radical model of leadership, see my book, Leading Like Jesus, co-written with Dr Keith Farmer.