John MacArthur. Twelve Ordinary Men: How the Master Shaped His Disciples for Greatness, and What He Wants to Do with You. W, 2002. See here to purchase the book.
John MacArthur is a pastor and author as well as the President of Master’s Seminary. Twelve Ordinary Men
is a profile of each of the twelve disciples. MacArthur looks at
everything that the New Testament says about the disciples and draws
conclusions about their character from that. He also considers various
ancient Christian traditions about what happened to them.
Here are some thoughts and observations:
A. MacArthur paints a coherent picture of each disciple, pulling
together the various things that the New Testament says about them. To
use an example, Thomas was willing to go to Jerusalem and die with Jesus
(John 11:16), but he also doubted that Jesus rose from the dead (John
20). In addition, shortly before Jesus’s death, Thomas said he did not
know where Jesus was going and wondered how the disciples could know the
way (John 14:5). What do all of these statements have in common? Some
think that the common theme was that Thomas was a dunce, or that Thomas
had his moments of faith and his moments of doubt. More plausibly,
MacArthur proposes that Thomas was a pessimist, yet a pessimist who
wanted to be with Jesus.
B. MacArthur continually says that the disciples demonstrate that God
uses the weak things of the world for God’s glory (I Corinthians 1:27).
Yet, MacArthur also thinks that the disciples had natural talents that
God used. Peter, for instance, was an apt leader because he was curious
and unafraid to ask questions, rushed to be in the middle of things, and
boldly got in the forefront and talked. God refined Peter’s character
yet used who Peter basically was. MacArthur does not think that everyone
has to be like Peter, though. He notes that Andrew quietly brought
individual people to Jesus. James the Less and Judas (not Iscariot) were
perfectly willing to stay in the background, yet God used them to do
great things, just as God used the other disciples.
C. In a few cases, MacArthur tries to work with what little details
the New Testament provides. Based on details in the New Testament,
MacArthur explores the possibility that James the Less was Matthew’s
brother, or Jesus’s nephew. MacArthur acknowledges that these are mere
possibilities and is not dogmatic about them. Some details were
puzzling: is John 19:25 suggesting that Mary’s sister was also named
Mary? What was particularly interesting about James the Less was that
his mother and others in his family were followers of Jesus.
D. There were cases in which MacArthur illuminated the Scriptures, or
at least offered plausible proposals and interpretations. Why did the
Samaritans in the Gospel of Luke have a problem with the disciples
passing through Samaritan territory to get to Jerusalem? According to
MacArthur, the Samaritans disliked that Jews were going to Jerusalem to
worship, when the Samaritans believed that God’s legitimate sanctuary
was at Mount Gerizim. How was Jesus responding to the question from
Judas (not Iscariot) about why Jesus shows himself to the disciples and
not the whole world (John 14:22)? Jesus’s response was that the Father
and Jesus appear to anyone who loves him.
E. On pages 98-99, MacArthur contrasts Paul with John. Paul,
according to MacArthur, acknowledges that believers struggle with sin
(Romans 7), whereas John presents things in black and white: believers
obey the commandments, love, do not practice sin, walk in the light,
etc. MacArthur states: “From reading John, one might think that
righteousness comes so easily and naturally to the Christian that every
failure would be enough to shatter our assurance completely. That is why
when I read heavy doses of John, I sometimes have to turn to Paul’s
epistles just to find some breathing space.” That is a telling
statement, since MacArthur’s writings have challenged my own spiritual
assurance in the past. Apparently, MacArthur has a similar struggle, at
times, and feels a need for breathing space as he reads and processes
Scripture.
F. Some of MacArthur’s harmonizations of Scripture are fairly
plausible, whereas others are not so much. MacArthur tries to harmonize
the different accounts of Jesus’s calling of the disciples. He says that
Jesus called them when they were disciples of John, then called them to
deeper levels of service, then chose them among other disciples to go
out and preach the message of the Kingdom. That makes a degree of sense,
for Peter in Luke 5 obviously already knew Jesus. MacArthur’s attempt
to reconcile the different accounts of Judas Iscariot’s death was a bit
of a stretch, though. What MacArthur seems to be saying is that the
priests bought Judas a field with the money that Judas returned to them,
and Judas hung himself then collapsed there (cp. Matthew 27:8; Acts
1:19).
G. MacArthur says that Judas left before Jesus and the disciples ate
the last supper. This is a significant topic because it is relevant to
debates about closed versus open communion. Did Judas partake of
communion with the other disciples? For MacArthur, there was no way that
Jesus would allow Judas, a greedy, hateful man who had opened himself
to Satanic influence, to partake of the holy sacrament of communion.
Looking at the Gospels, MacArthur’s interpretation makes sense if one
wants to compare John with Matthew and Mark. John lacks a communion
service, but it does depict Judas leaving right after Jesus confronts
him about the impending betrayal (John 13:21-29). Matthew and Mark
depict the last supper occurring after Jesus confronts Judas (Matthew
26:21-29; Mark 14:18-25), so, when one juxtaposes the three passages, it
is plausible that Judas left after the confrontation and before the
last supper. In Luke 22:15-22, however, Judas appears to be still at the
table after Jesus consecrates the bread and the wine, which would imply
that he did partake of communion.
H. MacArthur presents an intriguing, albeit distressing, picture of
Judas. Judas followed Jesus out of a desire for money and power and was
preoccupied with that, even though Jesus continually showed him kindness
and spoke spiritual truths to him. Judas was even able to hide his
wickedness and to blend in with the other disciples. MacArthur’s picture
of Judas was extensive, yet missing a significant element. Why did
Jesus make Judas the treasurer (John 12:6; 13:29), when he knew that
Judas was a thief? MacArthur does not say. Ellen G. White, a founder of
Seventh-Day Adventism, proposed that Jesus was trying to ween Judas from
greed by placing Judas in charge of helping the poor.
I. MacArthur assumes that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
According to MacArthur, Matthew was so knowledgeable about the Old
Testament because he studied the Scriptures on his own, since, as a
hated tax-collector, he could not hear them read at the synagogues. How
plausible is it that Matthew would have his own copy of the Torah,
though, when Torah scrolls were expensive and rare? And not only the
Torah, but different versions of it, including the proto-MT and the
Septuagint? Perhaps that could have happened eventually, since the
Scriptures were read in churches and Matthew could have had access to
them that way, but I wonder if Matthew, during the lifetime of Jesus,
could have had his own copy of the Torah. MacArthur says that Matthew
was a lower-level tax collector, so he was not as well-paid as a chief
tax collector. Could Matthew still have afforded a Torah scroll, or
attained a copy of that and variants through his extensive economic
contacts?
J. MacArthur seems to assume that the Old Testament directly
predicted Judas’s betrayal of Jesus, even though there are challenges
that can be made to this position. John 13:19 applies Psalm 41:9 to
Judas’s betrayal of Jesus: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I
trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me”
(KJV). The problem with applying Psalm 41 to Jesus is that the Psalmist
confesses sin against God in Psalm 41:4. Jesus, according to Christian
teaching, never sinned. MacArthur should have wrestled with this
question, at least briefly, since he goes deeply into Old Testament
background throughout this book.
K. There is not a whole lot of application in this book, but that is
all right with me, for constructing a bunch of artificial rules would
make the book look, well, artificial. The book is a compelling picture,
though, of how a loving and righteous God mentors and uses different
kinds of people, as well as the importance of valuing God’s purposes
rather than simply how God can meet one’s own needs.