Matthew Chapter 10 verse 2 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 2-4. - THE NAMES OF THE AGENTS. Parallel passages: Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16 (cf. Acts 1:13). This Commentary upon St. Luke deals so fully both with the list as a whole and with the separate names that it will not be necessary to say much here. Observe that the general agreement in arrangement points to some common basis underlying all four accounts; also that of these the one found in the Acts is the briefest, giving little more than the bare names; and that that found in our Gospel, on the contrary, is the fullest, containing, with two exceptions (vide infra), the details mentioned in one or other of the parallels, and adding two of its own. It mentions, in one instance or more, the parentage (Zebedee, Alphaeus), the relationship ("his brother... his brother"), the birthplace (Kerioth), the earlier occupation and religious standpoint ("publican... Zealot"), and, with a bare hint at the beginning (vide infra), but a clear statement at the end, the after-history ("first... who also betrayed him") of the apostles. The two omissions are the fact that our Lord added the names of Peter (parallels, but really given earlier, John 1:42) and Boanerges (Mark). Verse 2. - Now the names, In the parallels part of the word "names" is found as a verb, "whom also he named apostles;" i.e. the naming there refers, not to the individuals, but to their office. Is the form found in our Gospel an "accidental" rearrangement due to a reminiscence that the word "name" occurred in the earliest source, or is it possible that the two facts are connected, and that the individuals received a new name when they definitely entered on a new office? That they should have received a new name seems a priori not improbable, but the evidence is very slight. "Peter" is a clear case, for though the name was given earlier, it would receive a new application now, and perhaps was now again expressly given (cf. parallel passages); and other cases may be St. Matthew (vide Introduction, p. 21.) and possibly St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddaeus. Mark expressly says that the term "Boanerges" was given to the sons of Zebedee; but as there is no evidence that either St. James or St. John was afterwards known by this name, it need not have been a name in the same sense in which the others were. Observe the formal order of the first words of this verse (τῶν δὲ δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματα ἐστιν ταῦτα). Did the author of the Gospel take them from the heading of a section that already contained the names in order? If so the δέ would probably not have existed there, and it is worth noting that the original hand of D, the manuscript that is of special value for Palestinian tradition, omits it. Of the twelve (ver. 1, note) apostles (ver. 5, note) are these: The first. This, perhaps, refers to the order of call, Luke 5:1 (Nosgen), but more probably to the leading position that St. Peter held among the twelve. On this leadership, cf. the fragmentary excursus by Bishop Lightfoot, printed in 'Clement of Rome,' 2. 487 (1890). Simon. His Hebrew name was Simeon (שמעון, Acts 15:14, and 2 Peter 1:1, in the Received Text and Westcott and Herr margin), but his Gentile name (Matthew 3:1, note) was Simon, this good Greek name being chosen as almost identical in sound. It occurs frequently in the Palestinian Talmud (סימון). Who is called Peter. In common Christian parlance (Matthew 4:18; cf. Matthew 16:18).

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(2) A comparison of the four lists of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13) brings out some interesting facts. (1.) The name of Peter is always first, that of Judas always last. In the former case we recognise acknowledged preeminence. The position of the latter may have been the consequence of the infamy which attached to the name of the traitor; but it is possible (and this may have been one of the elements that entered into his guilt) that his place had always been one of inferiority.(2.) All the lists divide themselves into three groups of four, the persons in each group being always the same (assuming that the three names, Judas the brother (?) of James, Thaddaeus, and Lebbaeus, belong to the same person), though the order in each group varies.(3.) The first group includes the two sons of Jona and the two sons of Zebedee, whose twofold call is related in Matthew 4:18-21, John 1:40. In two lists (Mark and Acts) the name of Andrew stands last; in two (Matt. and Luke) that of John. In none of them are the names of Peter and John coupled together, as might have been expected from their close companionship (John 20:2; Acts 3:1). The four obviously occupied the innermost place in the company of the Twelve, and were chosen out of the chosen. The three, Peter, James, and John, were the only witnesses of the healing of Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:37), of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and of the Agony in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37). Something seems to have excluded Andrew, though he had been the first called of all (John 1:40), from this intimate companionship; but we find him joined with the other three as called to listen to the great prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3). All the four appear to have come from Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. . . .