All posts by BradleyCobb

Articles, Sermons

Cleansing a Leper

Leave a comment

(Note: An apology is in order for my falling behind in posting these sermons from the book of Mark as I had said I would do each Friday.  We’ve been quite busy, and this is one of those things that slipped through the cracks.  I am sorry.)

Text: Mark 1:40-45 – There came a leper to Him, begging Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying to Him, “If You desire it, You can make me clean.”

And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth His hand, and touched him, and says to him, “I desire.  Be cleansed.”  And as soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.  And He strictly charged him, and immediately sent him away, and says to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone: but go your way, show yourself to the high priest, and offer for your cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.”

But he went out and began to proclaim it much, and to spread abroad the incident, insomuch that Jesus could no longer openly enter the city, but was outside in deserted places: and they came to Him from every quarter.

Introduction

The King of kings, Jesus of Nazareth, has come into the territory of Satan, proclaiming freedom from slavery to sin.  He is gathering people to His side, preparing them for when His kingdom comes.  With some, as portrayed by Mark, Jesus called them by His word, “Come after me” (1:17).  With others, Jesus proved His point from the Scriptures (1:21-22).  Still others were taught about His power by seeing Him cast out demons or healing the sick (1:27-28, 32-39).

Maybe Mark’s readers were impressed by the healing of sicknesses.  Maybe they were even somewhat impressed by the casting out of demons (though some of them may have been like some skeptics today who claim that demons weren’t real, but were instead just different diseases or mental illnesses).  But doctors had healed diseases before, and people could fake being possessed by a demon.  So perhaps Mark’s readers are still skeptical.  But the next thing healed by Jesus was supposedly incurable, and no one would dare fake it.

The Text, part 1 – The Leper’s Confession (Mark 1:40)

Jesus had come down from the mountain after giving His “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 8:1), and had entered into a city (Luke 5:12) when something happened that would have made most people back up in fear.

There came a leper to Him

So many questions could be asked here.  What was a leper doing in the city?  What was the reaction of the disciples and the multitudes that were with Jesus?

Leprosy was not something to be taken lightly.  The Hebrew word for leprosy means “a smiting,” and was viewed as a punishment from God Himself.  Let me read what has been said about this incurable disease:

This disease “begins with specks on the eyelids and on the palms, gradually spreading over the body, bleaching the hair white wherever they appear, crusting the affected parts with white scales, and causing terrible sores and swellings. From the skin the disease eats inward to the bones, rotting the whole body piecemeal.” “In Christ’s day no leper could live in a walled town, though he might in an open village. But wherever he was, he was required to have his outer garment rent as a sign of deep grief, to go bareheaded, and to cover his beard with his mantle, as if in lamentation at his own virtual death. He had further to warn passers-by to keep away from him, by calling out, ‘Unclean! unclean!’ nor could he speak to any one, or receive or return a salutation, since in the East this involves an embrace.” (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

Leprosy, beginning with little pain, goes on in its sluggish but sure course, until it mutilates the body, deforms the features, turns the voice into a croak, and makes the patient a hopeless wreck. … An animal poison in the blood ferments … affects the skin … destroying the sensation of the nerves. The tuberculated form is the common one, inflaming the skin, distorting the face and joints, causing the hair of the head or eyebrows to fall off or else turn white, and encrusting the person with ulcerous tubercles with livid patches of surface between. The anesthetic elephantiasis begins in the forehead with shining white patches which burst; bone by bone drops off; the skin is mummy-like; the lips hang down exposing the teeth and gums. Tuberculated patients live (on the average) for only ten years more; anesthetic for 20. (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary)

During Jesus’ day, there were leper colonies all over the place (not just in Palestine).  Mark’s readers might have cringed when they saw the word “leper,” because it was a disease that was horrifying, could be contagious, and one for which there is no cure.

All of that, yet this leper—this man who was most likely reduced to begging just to feed himself and perhaps a family—apparently followed Jesus into the city, and bravely presented himself before Him.  He wasn’t someone who was just starting to show signs of leprosy, either.  Luke says he was “full of leprosy” (Luke 5:12).  That is, this man had the distorted joints, the deformed face, the white hair (quite possibly in patches, the rest of it having fallen out).

Begging Him, and kneeling down to Him

This leper didn’t just come to Jesus and wait for the Lord to notice him and say something.  He came to Jesus, falling down to his knees in front of Him, and begged Him, pleaded with Jesus for mercy and help.  Matthew says that this man “worshiped Him”; Luke says that this man fell on his face before Jesus; and both record that this man called Jesus “Lord” (Matthew 8:1-4, Luke 5:12-16).

It’s not stated in the text, but knowing what leprosy is, and knowing the fear people had of being contaminated by it, you can just picture the multitudes backing up in fear, forming a large circle around Jesus and this man.  The man probably had the bleached-white hair and the torn garments visible as he’s on his knees, face down to the ground, begging Jesus for help.  The people around may have even tried to say to Jesus, “My Lord, quickly, you must move, this man is a leper!”

Saying to Him, “If You will, You can make me clean.”

Mark’s readers, given what they knew about leprosy, might have laughed at this poor leper.  “You poor, ignorant man.  There’s no cure for leprosy!”  But this man had hope.  He had heard about—or maybe even seen—the power that Jesus had exhibited over demons and diseases.  As a result, this man had hope that Jesus could cure even him.  But more than hope, this man had confidence.  He could come to Jesus with, “I’ve got leprosy, is there anything you can do for me?”  He could have asked, “Lord, is there any way you can make my leprosy better?”  But when he came to Jesus, he didn’t ask if it was possible, or if Jesus could help in some small way; he made a declaration: “If You want to, You can make me clean.”

The word “will” or “wilt” (KJV) means to wish for something, to desire something, to want something to take place.  By saying this, the leper confessed his belief in the power of Jesus.  He had full confidence in the ability of Jesus to heal him, and he also knew that he was at the mercy of Jesus—“if You want, You can make me clean.”

This is reminiscent of the Jews on the day of Pentecost.  They didn’t come out and say the words, “I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” but they confessed their belief in Him by the words, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).

The Text, part 2 – Jesus’ Compassion (Mark 1:41)

Instead of backing away or rebuking the man for putting the multitude in danger of contracting leprosy, Jesus was “moved with compassion.”

Jesus, moved with compassion…

Mark is displaying the love, the compassion of Jesus with these words.  This great and powerful King, who has overthrown demons and is being followed by huge crowds, doesn’t have the massive ego-trip that kings (like certain Caesars of the day) often do.  He takes the time to look at the man, to listen to the man, and has genuine concern for the man.  The powerful King, Son of the God, whose mission is to bring about His Kingdom and overthrow the powers of darkness, is also a King of compassion who cares about people—not for what He can get out of them, but because He loves them.

It’s worth noting that Mark is the only one who mentions that Jesus was moved with compassion.

Jesus…put forth His hand and touched Him

“Oh no!”  You can just picture the looks on the disciples’ faces when they saw Jesus reach out to touch the leper.  It had been ingrained in their heads for a long time that you stay as far away from lepers as possible—NEVER touch them.  And Mark’s readers probably thought the same thing—“He’s not really going to touch that leper, is He?”

But Jesus did.  Jesus had power over leprosy, and wasn’t afraid.

Jesus…says to him, “I want to.  Be cleansed.”

Imagine someone coming up to you, begging for something that you have within your power to do.  “I need food to feed my family,” or “I’m broken down and need a ride.”  Do you look at them and say, “I don’t want to help you”?  Can you imagine Jesus looking at this man, who is begging for help, and saying, “Nah, I don’t really want to help you”?  Of course not!  When you truly have compassion on someone, you want to help them, and you will help them if it is within your power to do so.

Jesus reaches out and touches the man, and expresses His compassion with the words “I want to [that is, I want to heal you]. Be cleansed.”

The Text, part 3 – The Leper’s Cleansing (Mark 1:42)

Right now, Mark’s readers, who understand that this gospel is supposed to be a true story, are hooked.  Sicknesses and diseases are one thing; but healing leprosy?  That’s something worth noticing.

As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him and he was cleansed.

Just like with Simon’s mother-in-law, there was no “recovery period,” or “It looks like it’s starting to get better” with this healing.  The healing was instantaneous.  Oh, to have been able to see that.  If the gospels were written today, we’d have put much more detail about how it looked, and the changes that took place on this man.  Did his hair go back to its original color?  His face looking completely different after the touch than it did when he bowed to the ground in front of Jesus?  The scales on his skin—did they fall to the ground or just disappear?  His joints miraculously changed?

Regardless of how it looked, and how the instant transformation took place, the fact remains that the man was healed—completely healed.  The crowd saw it, and the man knew it.  Put yourself in his place, in agony because of the leprosy, an outcast, bowing down at Jesus’ feet, and you feel His touch as He says the words “Be cleansed.”  You look at your hands and see that they are…normal.  You start to stand and realize that your joints—your knees, ankles, elbows, hips—aren’t bulging and deformed anymore.  You are able to stand fully upright for the first time in ages.  Tears almost certainly flowed from this man’s eyes as he looked upon Jesus, the compassionate King.

Now, take a moment to think about the thankfulness that people who are truly in need will have when you show the love of Christ to them and help them in their time of need.

The Text, part 4 – Jesus’ Charge (Mark 1:43-44)

And He strictly charged him, and immediately sent him away,

It’s interesting that Mark uses this word “strictly” to describe how Jesus spoke to the man, because it seems to be in contrast with the compassion shown in the previous verse.  He looked on this leper with compassion, desired to heal him, and then touched him.  But now there’s a difference in attitude; Jesus is being stern with the man.  Why?  Because even though the man had the best of intentions, he had broken the Law of Moses in coming to Jesus in the city.

And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, “Unclean, unclean.” All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his habitation be. (Leviticus 13:45-46).

McGarvey put it this way:

The language used indicates that Jesus sternly forbade the man to tell what had been done. The man’s conduct, present and future, shows that he needed severe speech. In his uncontrollable eagerness to be healed he had overstepped his privileges, for he was not legally permitted to thus enter cities and draw near to people (Numbers 5:2-3); he was to keep at a distance from them, and covering his mouth, was to cry, “Tame, tame—unclean, unclean” (Leviticus 13:45-46, Luke 17:12-13). The man evinced a like recklessness in disregarding the command of Jesus.

The rest of what Jesus says to this man shows that the stern talking-to was in regards to his following God’s law.

and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.”

This command of Jesus not to broadcast the miracle has caused some confusion.  After all, didn’t Jesus want people to know who He was?  Wasn’t He performing a lot of miracles?  Why should He tell this man to keep the miracle secret?  Different suggestions have been given, including:

  1. It may have been better for the man not to mention his cure due to potential religious persecution (as in John 9:34). (McGarvey)
  2. The Lord was trying to suppress excitement, and prevent the crowds that gathered around Him from being too large, hindering His work (which is what ended up happening in verse 45). (McGarvey)
  3. “For the miracle to be properly attested, it was necessary that the appropriate gifts should be offered under Moses’ commandment, and that the priests should certify it. Until this was accomplished, the man should hold his peace; lest, if a rumor of these things went before him, the priests at Jerusalem, out of envy, out of a desire to depreciate what the Lord had done, might deny that the man had ever been a leper, or else that he was now truly cleansed” (Burton Coffman).

While each of these are reasonable, and carry with it some truth, it seems that the most logical explanation—especially given the stern and strict way that Jesus delivered the order to the man—is that He was telling this man to follow the Law of God, as opposed to breaking it like he had done moments earlier.  In other words, in doing this, it’s Jesus saying to the leper, “Repent and sin no more.”

From this, we need to understand that just because Jesus is a compassionate King, that doesn’t mean He’s a King who allows His subjects to ignore the law.  Jesus sternly charged this man to do what the Law required.  Compassion—that is, the mercy of Jesus does not eliminate obedience.

The Text, part 5 – The Leper’s Cheerfulness (Mark 1:45)

But he went out and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter.

It’s been said of this leper that:

[He] was so elated that he could scarcely refrain from publishing his cure, and he must also have thought that this was what Jesus really wanted—that in commanding him not to publish it he did not mean what he said (McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel).

Instead of doing what Jesus sternly commanded him to do, this leper told everyone he could find (hopefully on his way to Jerusalem to at least obey the second part of the command).  His words spread like a wildfire—which on one hand shows just how grateful this man was to be cleansed, but on the other hand showed a blatant disregard for the commands of Jesus.

As a result…

Jesus could no more openly enter the city, but was outside in deserted places: and they came to Him from every quarter.

You might think, “That’s great; more people are flocking to this new King!”  But that is completely opposed to Jesus’ mission and methods.  Up to this point, He spread His message in the synagogues, proclaiming the Kingdom of God, and showing the truth of it from Scriptures.  Now, however, He couldn’t go into the city without a mob of people around Him.  Forget a peaceful, contemplative audience in the synagogue; Jesus was being mobbed by people—most of them either wanting some kind of healing or wanting to see what He would do next.  The disobedience of the leper hindered the cause of Christ, turning Him into a spectacle.

The excitement cause by such an entry was injurious in several ways: 1. It gave such an emphasis to the miracles of Jesus as to make them overshadow his teaching. 2. It threatened to arouse the jealousy of the government. 3. It rendered the people incapable of calm thought. … Disobedience, no matter how well-meaning, always hinders the work of Christ (McGarvey)

The people who came to Him from “every quarter” included scribes and Pharisees from Judea and Jerusalem, according to Luke’s account.  It is as a result of the leper’s disobedience that the religious leaders in Jerusalem took special notice of the works of Jesus, and that’s when the antagonism towards the King began—because someone disobeyed.

Application

Jesus was a Man of Compassion—We Must be as Well.

It was a heart-rending scene for Jesus when He saw the poor leper fall down at His feet, begging to be healed.  Jesus knew He had the power, the ability to help this man in his struggles, and so He helped.  Reaching out and touching this outcast of society, Jesus helped him.  And Mark tells us in no uncertain terms that it was because Jesus had compassion on him.  Jesus reached out to the outcasts, the overlooked, the scorned, and He did it with compassion.

It might be interesting to see the results if we did an anonymous polling of everyone we know, asking if they would describe us as “compassionate.”  How would they answer if that question was asked about you?  Do you show compassion on those who are in need?  Or do you deem them not worthy of your time?  It doesn’t have to be something massively huge like leprosy; it could be as simple as a kind word or a meal.  Jesus let people know He cared.  We should be the same way.

Compassion does not Eliminate Obedience.

The leper came to Jesus in anguish and pain, in submission and with faith, a man in need of healing.  After receiving mercy from Jesus, though, the man was expected to obey the law of God.  It’s like Jesus was saying, “I’m healing you because I have mercy on you, even though you were disobeying the Law of God.  But now that I’ve healed you, it’s time for you to show your appreciation by being obedient.”  So many people preach the grace of God and resolutely deny—even ridicule the very idea—that obedience is necessary.  “That’s salvation by works!” they cry.  My friends, God’s grace and mercy are amazing things, but they only come to those who are willing to obey Him.  Matthew 7:21 – not all that say to Me “Lord, Lord” shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father which is in heaven.”  Or Hebrews 5:9 – Jesus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him.”  Christians—those who have received the mercy and compassion of Jesus Christ to cleanse them from sin—are told “faith without works is dead” (James 2).

Disobedience Hinders the Cause of Christ.

Because the former leper disobeyed, Jesus was unable to do His work the way He had planned.  Surely the leper didn’t mean to cause problems and didn’t have ill-motives when he happily told others about his healing.  However, his disobedience ended up making the work of the Lord more difficult, and led to His enemies—the scribes and Pharisees—coming to watch Him; and thus began the antagonistic relationship they had with our Lord.  The same thing can happen to us, when we disobey God today, even without ill intentions, we can do harm to the cause of Christ.  One weekday afternoon, as we were driving down the interstate, we were passed by a car going at least 80 mph, and on the back of their car, it was advertised “Follow me to the ______ church of Christ.”  An honest-hearted person who was looking for a church would quite possibly have said, “Well, we won’t be going there” because they obviously have no respect for the law.

People watch you, and how you act reflects on the church and therefore on Jesus as well.

Leprosy is like Sin.

  • Like leprosy, sin has a small beginning, but then it spreads over the entire man.
  • Its cure is beyond the reach of human skill or natural remedies.
  • It is painful, loathsome, degrading, and fatal.
  • It separates its victim from the pure and drives him into association with the impure.
  • It is a foe to religious privileges.
  • It can be remedied by God. (anonymous)

Invitation

Sin, like leprosy, is a curse.  But unlike leprosy, there is a cure for sin which is available for all people, if they would simply come to Jesus, the compassionate King, who came to this earth and lived a life among sinful, fallen humanity.  In His compassion and love, He showed us how to live, pointed the way to the Father, and died so that we could be cleansed from our sins.

All He asks of you is that you believe in Him, repent of your sinful life, acknowledge Him as the Savior, and be baptized into His death so that you may rise to walk in newness of life.  If we to make the parallel with the story of the leper, it’s come to Jesus in humble submissiveness, bowing down at His feet through obedience to His command to be baptized.  It’s at that point that Jesus touches us and makes us whole, free from sin.  Afterwards, Jesus expects us to follow God’s law, or to put it another way, “walk in the light” or “be faithful.”

Won’t you come and accept the compassionate Savior today?

 

Announcements, Books

Sermons for the People (free eBook)

Leave a comment

As a special treat, we are doubling up this week with new additions to the Jimmie Beller Memorial eLibrary!

SermonsForThePeople

Today’s inclusion is a collection of sermons by a man named William Henry Book, and was originally published in 1918.  While you might not have heard of him before, you’ll probably enjoy the fourteen lessons contained in this book.  They are easy to understand, but cover some important topics.

Contents

  1. “In The Beginning God”—Gen. 1:1.
  2. The Bible God’s Word.
  3. Jesus Christ The Son Of God.
  4. Spiritual Worship.
  5. Christ’s Prayers.
  6. Lord, Teach Us To Pray.
  7. Prayer a Necessity.
  8. Prayers Answered.
  9. That Tongue of Mine.
  10. The Home.
  11. Now And Hereafter
  12. What We Are—What We Shall Be.
  13. Where are Our Dead?.
  14. Heavenly Recognition

To download this free eBook, or to read it online, just click the link below!  And as always, we’ve completely reformatted it and corrected any typos we found along the way.  Enjoy!

Sermons for the People (William Henry Book)

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Books

What Happened to the Other Judas?

Leave a comment

Traditions about Thaddaeus (aka “Judas, not Iscariot”)

The apocryphal Genealogies of the Apostles says that Thaddaeus was of the house of Joseph (thus of Ephraim or Manasseh),1 while a 13th century collection of biblical legends, called The Book of the Bee, says he was from the tribe of Judah.2

There was once a work entitled The Gospel of Thaddaeus, but no surviving copies exist.  A third or fourth century work, called the Constitutions of the Apostles, which falsely claims to be a joint-effort of the twelve, has Thaddaeus teaching that a widow who recently lost her mate is not to be taken in by the church until she had proven that she was going to stay godly.  The same writing claims that Thaddaeus said exorcists were not ordained (given that role by the church), but anyone who could prove they were truly an exorcist was to be ordained as a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.3

The Acts of Thaddaeus says that the apostle was born in Edessa, northwest of Asia Minor, and that he returned there after the ascension of Jesus to teach the king, Abgar, and the other inhabitants of the city, about the Lord.  He had a very successful mission trip, and the king helped to destroy the idol temples in the area.  Afterwards, it is said that he went south into Syria and preached there for five years before dying a natural death.4

Other traditions, however, include Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia among Thaddaeus’ mission fields.  One early church historian says that Thaddaeus was martyred in Syria.5

Assadour Antreassian, in his book Jerusalem and the Armenians, states:

[A]ll Christian Churches accept the tradition that Christianity was preached in Armenia by the Apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew in the first half of the first century… Armenia was among the first to respond to the call of Christ so early.  Thus, the above mentioned Apostles became the first illuminators of Armenia.  The generally accepted chronology gives a period of eight years to the mission of St. Thaddaeus (35-43 AD) and sixteen years to that to St. Bartholomew (44-60 AD), both of whom suffered martyrdom in Armenia (Thaddaeus at Ardaze in 50 AD and Bartholomew at [Derbend] in 68 AD).6

Roman Catholic tradition says that in Persia, Thaddaeus was “martyred with a javelin or with arrows or by being tied to a cross.”7  Some claim that traditions have him murdered and buried in Egypt or Beirut.8 The most specific record of his death says that he was killed with arrows on Mt. Ararat.9

1 See Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol. 2, page 50.

2 See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Thaddaeus.”

3 Apostolic Constitutions, Book 8, chapters 25-26.  The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, page 493.  Since the Bible describes bishops and presbyters (elders) as the same people, this later work cannot be considered authoritative at all.

4 The Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve.  See The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8, pages 558-559.  The legend regarding King Abgar (or Abgarus) is fascinating.  Abgar wrote to Jesus after hearing about the miracles He had done, inviting Him to come to Edessa to escape the horrible Jews.  Jesus sent word back that after He ascended, He would send Thaddaeus to Edessa to preach.  There are some documents which have a variation on this legend, making Thomas the missionary instead of Thaddaeus, or which have Thomas sending Thaddaeus.  Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, chapter 13) claims to have seen the original documents and translated them himself, including a response from Jesus.

5 See McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, page 198.  The church historian is Nicephorus Callistus.

6 Assadour Antreassian, Jerusalem and the Armenians, page 20, as quoted in McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, page 199.  McBirnie goes on to relate that other traditions date Thaddaeus’ missionary work in Armenia from 43-66.

7 Mary Sharp, Traveler’s Guide to Saints in Europe, as quoted by McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, page 202.

8 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Thaddaeus.”  McBirnie, however, investigated these supposed traditions and discovered that the various religious groups in those areas had never heard of those traditions.  See his The Search for the Twelve Apostles, pages 202-203.

9 McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, page 204.

Announcements, Books

The Jackson-Iler Debate on Mormonism

1 Comment

Sometimes when you read a debate, your eyes are opened.  Oftentimes we assume that we understand where the other side is coming from, when in actuality, it’s different than we thought–and that’s important for us to realize, because sometimes we can spend all our time arguing against something they don’t really believe in the first place.

Today’s new addition to the Jimmie Beller Memorial eLibrary is the Bill Jackson, John Iler debate on Mormonism.  Bill Jackson described the events that led to the debate as follows:

In June, 1984, Mr. John R. Iler, Jr. wrote me after reading my debate with James Crackin, an atheist, as that debate was featured in an issue of THRUST magazine. A friend of Mr. Iler’s, in Kentucky, had obtained a copy of THRUST and had forwarded it on to him.

Mr. Iler stated that he was involved in a missionary endeavor of the Latter-Day Saints, and was one of the “Seventy in the Church.” He stated that he was currently working on a manuscript in defense of the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and asked if I would be interested in debating “Mormonism.” I then accepted, and in our correspondence plans were made to have the debate printed in this present form.

We trust that all who read this will gain benefit, and we express our thanks to Mr. Iler for his willingness to defend those things he believes.

-Bill Jackson

Not being thoroughly studied-up on Mormonism, there were some arguments put forth that I hadn’t heard before, and some valid criticisms leveled on each side.

I wish this debate could have been longer and certain issues addressed (there were arguments completely ignored by both sides, unfortunately), but it is a good overall treatment of the topics.

Proposition 1: The Book of Mormon is Inspired
Proposition 2: The Bible is God’s Final Revelation to Mankind

As always, we’ve taken this book and completely reformatted it, correcting any typos that appeared in the original and giving it a fresher look.

To read online, or to download to your computer/tablet/phone/etc… just click the link below!

Jackson-Iler Debate on Mormonism

Articles, Books

The Other Apostle Named “Judas”

Leave a comment

Thaddaeus

This apostle is known by three different names; in fact, Jerome later called him “trinomius” (“three names”),1 but we are told very little else about him.  His name, according to Matthew, was “Lebbaeus,”2 the meaning of which is not certain,3 though some say it means “courageous”4 or “man of heart,”5 while others say it means “beloved child.”6  This same inspired writer says that his surname was “Thaddaeus,” which is also of unknown origin, but some dictionaries have said it means the same: “man of heart” or “courageous.”7

But, taking the list as Luke gives it, we find that this disciple had another name: Judas.

The Other “Judas”

In the place where Matthew and Mark place “Thaddaeus,” Luke puts “Judas of James.”  Almost all translations insert either “the son of” or “the brother of” in this description.8 So, which one is it supposed to be?

Some translations read “Judas, the brother of James” because the author of Jude (also named “Judas”) calls himself “the brother of James.”  As such, the translators assumed that they must be the same person, laboring under the idea that only the apostles were inspired.9  If this were the case, then Thaddaeus was the brother of James and Matthew, and was also a son of Alphaeus.10  There are those who, because they insist that James the son of Alphaeus must also be the “brother of Jesus,” believe that Thaddaeus is also Jesus’ brother, Judas, mentioned in Matthew 13:55.11

Most translations, however, read “Judas, the son of James.”  This is because it is the same Greek structure as “James, the son of Zebedee,” and “James, the son of Alphaeus.”12  This presents no theological problems, no contradictions with the biblical text.  It does, however, show that the author of Jude was not one of the apostles.

Why the Different Names?

It has been suggested by at least one writer that Matthew and Mark were trying to make certain there was no confusion between the faithful Judas and the wicked Judas Iscariot,13 while Luke, being the historian, gave his actual name.14  John used the name “Judas,” but followed it immediately with “not Iscariot.”15  Another said that Thaddaeus was chosen to be an apostle, but that he died during Jesus’ ministry and was replaced by Judas, the son of James.16 Obviously, that can’t be the case, for Luke and Mark record the same event—the choosing of the apostles—and one lists “Thaddaeus” while the other lists “Judas, the son of James.”17

The first of these two suggestions seems most likely.18

The Recorded Words of Thaddaeus

The only specific action of Thaddaeus, apart from the other apostles, is recorded in John 14:22.  The Lord’s Supper has concluded, Jesus has announced His departure, but told the apostles that He would not leave them comfortless.  He tells the apostles that He will manifest Himself to them, even though the world will not see Him.  This is when Thaddaeus (a.k.a., Judas, the son of James) speaks:

He, Judas (not the Iscariot), speaks to Him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, but not to the world?”

Literally, he asked Jesus, “what has happened that you are about to manifest yourself to us, and not the world?”19 Thaddaeus didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about, but the Lord had reference to the sending of the Holy Spirit.20  This is something that would not be given to the world, but only to those who kept Jesus’ commandments.

1 See J.G. Tasker’s article on “Judas” in James Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels.

2 Matthew 10:3.  There is a debate as to the validity of this reading, as a very small minority of manuscripts are missing the name “Lebbaeus.”  For more information about these variants, see Nestle’s article in James Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels, “Lebbaeus.”

3 See Nestle’s article in Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels, “Lebbaeus.”  Also, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 5, page 315, gives several possibilities that have been argued for the meaning.

4 Easton’s Bible Dictionary, “Lebbaeus.”

5 Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “Lebbaeus.”

6 Vincent’s Word Studies, note on Mark 3:18.

7 See Thayer’s dictionary, “Lebbaeus” (G2280).  However, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (“Thaddaeus”) says that the name means “Breast,” and Nestle (Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels, “Lebbaeus”) records the theory that a scribe made a slight alteration (the extra “b,” apparently) so as to not give the apostle an “undignified” name that meant “mamma” (as in “mammogram”).

8 Compare the King James’ Version with most modern translations in Acts 1:13.

9 N.T. Caton, in his Commentary on the Minor Epistles, took the position that only the apostles were inspired, and that Luke and Mark received their information from apostles (primarily Paul and Peter, respectively).

10 See chapters on Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus, for more discussion on their relationship.

11 Most Catholics seem to take this position, though the New American Bible (which is a Catholic production) translates Acts 1:13 as “Judas, son of James,” which opposes their traditional view.

12 See Matthew 10:2-4 in Greek.  Young’s Literal Translation says “James of Zebedee” and “James of Alphaeus.”

13 Nestle, “Lebbaeus” in James Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels.

14 I could find no sources that stated this part of the theory, but it seems to be the best explanation as to why Luke would differ from the other two lists.

15 John 14:22

16 See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Judas of James.”

17 Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16.

18 In addition to this name confusion, there are also several manuscripts of Latin and Syrian origin that read “Judas Zealot” or “Judas Thomas” in place of “Thaddaeus” in Matthew and Mark’s accounts.  These most likely stem from traditions about the apostles that were assumed to be true, and thus placed in the text itself.  See James Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels, “Lebbaeus.”

19 Modern Literal Version.  See also Vincent’s Word Studies at this passage.

20 John 14:17.

Articles, Books

The Anti-Government Apostle

Leave a comment

Beyond his name and epitaphs, we know nothing about Simon except that he was an apostle.  But, there is something to be said for the epitaphs themselves.

Simon the Canaanite

Most writers seem to think that the descriptive name “Canaanite” or “Cananaean”1 is a political term instead of a geographical term.2  It seems more likely that it is both.  Canaan was the name of the Promised Land (Exodus 6:4; Leviticus 25:38; Acts 13:19), which was given to the Jews by God as their inheritance.  But by the time of Jesus, the Jews were ruled over by the Romans.  So, while the Jews still lived in Canaan, they certainly didn’t feel like it was theirs alone.  But there were Jewish patriots, nationalists, who wanted to re-take control over their Promised Land—Canaan.  They were called “Canaanites,” or, as Luke describes them, “Zealots.”  They were very “conspicuous for their fierce advocacy of the Mosaic ritual.”3

The Cananæans or Zealots were a sect founded by Judas of Gamala, who headed the opposition to the census of Quirinius (AD 6 or 7). They bitterly resented the domination of Rome, and would fain have hastened by the sword the fulfilment of the Messianic hope. During the great rebellion and the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its destruction (AD 70), their fanaticism made them terrible opponents, not only to the Romans, but to other factions amongst their own countrymen.4

Josephus, however, describes the Zealots who brought the wrath of Rome upon the Jews as a collection of criminals who overthrew the high priest, murdered prominent men, and falsely accused them of consorting with Rome.  This group of people took upon themselves the name “Zealots,” as though they were zealous of the Law, but were really just zealous of murder and mayhem.5  This being the case, the connection between the Zealots of Jesus’ day and the Zealots of 40 years later may be one of name only.

Other Facts about Simon

Simon was a disciple of Jesus Christ who, one morning, was called to meet the Lord on a mountain.  That day, Jesus selected twelve men for a special task—and Simon was one of those men chosen.6  He was given miraculous abilities to heal the sick and to cast out demons, which he used when he was sent out on the so-called “limited commission.”7  On that apostolic mission, Jesus sent them out “two by two,” or in pairs.8 When Matthew records this event, he doesn’t say “two by two,” but he does group the apostles into pairs when he lists them:

  • “Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother”
  • “James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother”
  • “Philip and Bartholomew”
  • “Thomas and Matthew the publican”
  • “James, the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeaus”
  • “Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.”9

It seems, therefore, that when Simon was sent out on the limited commission, his preaching partner was none other than Judas Iscariot himself!10

Simon witnessed many miracles of Jesus, but it still wasn’t enough to keep him from abandoning Jesus when Judas showed up with soldiers to arrest Him.11  He ran away, and after learning that Jesus was dead, he was sad, but also scared that the Jews might come after him as well.  So, when he met with the other apostles that Sunday, the doors were shut tight.  The joy, surprise, and excitement must have been incredible when Jesus—very much alive—appeared in the middle of the room.  Soon after that event, Simon was one of the ones who tracked down Thomas to share the news of the resurrection.12

Simon spent a large portion of the next month in the company of the resurrected Lord, trying to soak in everything that Jesus had to say to them.  When He ascended into heaven, Simon was one of the ones staring up into the clouds.  Just a few days later, Simon was in a room with the rest of the apostles when it sounded like a tornado blew through, and he began to speak the wonderful works of God in another language.13

After baptizing people on Pentecost, Simon also helped distribute money to the needy saints who were in Jerusalem,14 and also helped in ordaining “the seven” who would take a more hands-on role in caring for the Grecian widows.15  He remained in Jerusalem after the persecution by Saul of Tarsus began, and is again seen in Jerusalem some years later in regards to the circumcision controversy among Gentile converts.16

However, Simon didn’t stay in Jerusalem the rest of his life.  He had received a commission from Jesus Christ to “go into all the world” and to “teach all nations.”17  He would have obeyed his Lord’s command and went about working as a missionary.  He died as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, whose name is on the foundation of the holy city, New Jerusalem.18  That much, we can know for certain.

Traditions about Simon the Zealot

The apocryphal work, The Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles, identifies Simon as Nathanael, and claims he is from the tribe of Benjamin.19  Catholic Church tradition says that he is one of the “brethren of the Lord” mentioned in Mark 6:3, and that his father is Cleopas/Alphaeus.20

According to one writing, his work was among the Samaritans,21 after which he returned to Jerusalem to lead the church there following the death of James, the brother of the Lord,22 though this appears to be an instance of confusing people with the same name.23  A different tradition says he preached in “Egypt, Cyrene, and Mauritania.”24

One tradition says that he was taken by the Jews in Jerusalem and crucified, but that they also scourged him (i.e., beat him with skin-tearing whips) the whole time he was on the cross until he died.25

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:13.  “Canaanite” (KJV), “Cananaean” (ASV).

2 See the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Simon the Cananaean.”

3 McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 9, page 754.

4 James Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, “Cananaean.”

5 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 9-13.  The Zealots defiled the sanctuary in the temple and had no regard for human life or the Law of Moses.

6 Luke 6:12-16.

7 Matthew 10:1-4.  The phrase “limited commission” is used because Jesus sent them exclusively to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), whereas after the resurrection He sent them to “all nations” (Matthew 28:18-19), earning the latter the name “the Great Commission.”

8 Mark 6:7; compare Mark 6:7-13 with Matthew 10:1-42 for evidence that these are parallel.

9 Matthew 10:2-4.

10 This makes for some interesting study, since some believe “Iscariot” could be a reference to an assassin group whose name, Sicarii, translated, means “dagger bearers.”  They, like the Zealots, were very interested in overthrowing the Roman government, but instead of being bold about it, they discretely murdered high-ranking officials in crowds, and were gone before anyone realized what had happened.

11 Matthew 26:56

12 See John 20.

13 These events can be found in the first two chapters of Acts.

14 Acts 4:32-35.

15 Acts 6:1-6.  This group is referred to as “the seven” in Acts 21:8.

16 Acts 8:1; Acts 15.

17 Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:18-20.

18 Revelation 21:14.

19 See Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol. 2, page 50.

20 See the previous chapter on James, the son of Alphaeus, for a fuller description of this issue and for the evidence showing it is false.  Suffice it to say, Jesus had already chosen His twelve apostles prior to John’s saying that His “brethren” still didn’t believe in Him (John 6:67-7:5).  Therefore, Simon the apostle cannot be the same as Simon the brother of the Lord.

21 See “The Preaching of Simon, the Son of Cleopas,” in Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol. 2, pages 70-74.  This tradition, while ancient, contains some obvious Catholic influence, including the ordination of “priests” and a “bishop” over the church in a certain city.

22 See “The Martyrdom of Simon, the Son of Clopas,” in Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol. 2, page 75.  This, like the other tradition, is highly suspect because it is also said that he commanded “churches to be built” and named one of them after the virgin Mary.  Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 11, and Book 4, chapter 22) quotes Hegesippus in saying that a man named Simon (the son of Cleopas) succeeded James in Jerusalem, though these are certainly not the same men (Eusebius himself makes a distinction between the apostles and the brethren of the Lord in Book 3, chapter 11, of the same work.  The Simon described by Hegesippus was the leader of the Ebionites, a Jewish sect which completely rejected the apostle Paul and only used Matthew’s gospel—they also rejected the possibility that Gentiles could be right with the Lord.  Certainly no one could believe that this group was led by one of the apostles.

23 See the previous footnote for more information, as well as McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia under “Simon (10)” and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Ebionism.”

24 McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 9, page 754.

25 Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol.2, page 77.  The problem with this is that this same writing also claims that Simon lived to be 120 years old, and that he died under the rule of Trajan—at which time Jerusalem had already been destroyed and the Jews were forbidden to enter that area any longer.  McClintock and Strong reference “an annotation preserved in an original copy of the Apostolical Constitutions (viii, 27), [where Simon is said] to have been crucified in Judaea in the reign of Domitian.”

Articles

An Open Letter Regarding Michael Shank

11 Comments

I’ve been asked this everywhere I go, it seems.  I’ve been asked by some friends in Canada.  I’ve been asked by preachers in Ohio, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Illinois, and several other places that I don’t even remember.  I’ve been asked by left-leaning brethren, one-cup brethren, and everyone in between.  They’ve all asked me the same thing:

Is Michael Shank really/still a faithful Christian?

One person had been told that Mike wasn’t a Christian at all, but had written a book to try to make money off the brotherhood.  Another said he had heard that Michael had been disfellowshiped and that “Randle” (from the book Muscle and a Shovel) either never existed or had left the church.  And today I heard the accusations of “Mike refuses to submit to an eldership,” “Mike doesn’t believe in paying preachers,” and “Mike is a heretic.”

Let me state this as clearly and unequivocally as I know how:

These are all lies.

I have known Mike since long before he ever wrote Muscle and a Shovel.  He is the same person now as he was then: one who cares deeply about  God, about Jesus Christ, and about being right with the eternal Judge of the universe.  He’s not perfect–none of us are–but in no way, shape, or form has he left the faith.

Some facts:

The congregation in Metropolis, IL grew when Mike was the preacher.  But he ended stepping down because of all the stress that he was under.  He tried to make ends meet by having his own electrical business, and was at one point in serious danger of foreclosure.  And through this time, he was still a member in Metropolis.  Obviously, Mike didn’t get into preaching for money.  And at this point, Muscle and a Shovel had been out for several months with very few sales.  He didn’t write the book for notoriety or money.

In the last couple years, Mike and his family made a very difficult decision, which perhaps has been the source of most of these unfounded rumors.  They decided they could no longer worship where they had been members.  I will not get into the specifics, but needless to say, they felt that they would be spiritually harming themselves to continue to attend there.

After visiting several congregations, they decided to do what the first-century Christians did, and began to meet in their home with some other like-minded Christians.  They still meet on the first day of the week.  They still teach the plan of salvation as seen in the Bible.  They still sings psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs without mechanical instruments of music.  They still take the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day.  They love each other.  They praise God, and they are bringing people to the Lord.

I don’t know where these rumors originated (I have my suspicions), but I do know for certain the names of some of those involved who are spreading these lies.  These people have been guilty of spreading gossip.  And of course, none of these people ever go talk to Mike and ask him about it.  They just spread lies to the world as though it were truth without bothering to look into it.

It reminds me of the time when Jesus had to put the apostle John in his place.  John came to Jesus, saying that there was this man who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and that John told him to stop–stop doing these good works because you don’t follow us!  Jesus told John, “Don’t forbid him!”

I plead with all who read this to remember what Jesus said after that: “He that is not against us is on our side.”

I know some of the Christians in Metropolis and spoke with some of them in person recently.  They spoke highly of Mike and his work.  They expressed their love for him and his family, and said that “anyone who knows him knows that he is a good, Christian man.”

A Plea:

If you hear someone putting down Michael Shank, ask them if they’ve bothered to talk to him, or if they’re just repeating gossip and rumors.  If they say something like “I got it from a reliable source,” ask them again, “Have you talked to Mike, or are you just repeating gossip?”

I speak as one who has known Mike personally for 12 years.  I speak as one who has exchanged literally hundreds (probably into the thousands) of emails with him and spent many, many hours on the phone with him (ask my wife…when she finds out I’m on the phone with him, she’ll say, “See you in a couple hours”).

All this to say, I know Mike.  I know his devotion to Jesus and to the doctrine of Christ.  He has not left the faith, he has not rejected the biblical concept of the eldership, he definitely isn’t opposed to paying the preacher.

In short, Michael Shank is a faithful Christian, and he is doing a good work for the Lord.

So, to paraphrase the words of our Lord, “Leave him alone.  Why are you troubling him? He has labored good work for Jesus.” (Mark 14:6).

A Final Thought:

The Bible condemns gossip and those who spread it.  The Bible also strongly condemns the person who sows discord among the brethren.  Those who are spreading lies about Mike are doing both.

Don’t be one of them.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Announcements, Books

Baptism in Spirit and in Fire

Leave a comment

One of the larger religious groups in the United States talk about wanting to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and baptized into fire.  They don’t have a clue what they’re asking for, because baptism in fire is not a good thing (Matthew 3:10-12).

James Challen, a preacher from generations ago, wrote a small book on this exact topic, and we are proud to add it today as part of the Jimmie Beller Memorial eLibrary.

To download it or read it online, just click the link below!

Challen – Baptism in Spirit and in Fire

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Books

That Other Guy Named “Jacob” (part 2)

Leave a comment

False Ideas about James, the Son of Alphaeus

Because of the insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, the Catholic Church goes through some crazy hermeneutical gymnastics that include this James.  Their argument goes like this:

  1. Mary remained a virgin her entire life, with Jesus being her only child.
  2. Therefore, the “brothers” of Jesus (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) weren’t really His “brothers,” but cousins.
  3. The woman named “Mary” who was the mother of James and Joses1 was not the mother of Jesus, but the sister of the Virgin Mary. 2
  4. The mother of James and Joses is the wife of Cleopas.
  5. Therefore, Cleopas (who is to be identified with Alphaeus) was the Virgin Mary’s brother-in-law, and the father of four of the apostles: James the less, Judas [the brother] of James, Simon the zealot, and Matthew.3

This whole line of argumentation starts with a false premise, and continues to make false claims and assumptions to try to back it up.  This whole idea is proven false by the following:

  1. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn’t “know” (have sexual relations with) Mary until after Jesus was born. This means that after Jesus was born, they did.  Thus, she was not a perpetual virgin.
  2. The “brethren” of the Lord are mentioned repeatedly as being with Mary, the mother of Jesus.4 So, instead of these adult males being with their own mother (who was still alive), they went everywhere with their aunt?!?  Such an idea is ridiculous.
  3. Those who knew Jesus said that He was the “son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and Judah, and Simon” and that his sisters also lived there.5
  4. No rational parent would name two daughters with the same name—Mary did not have a sister named Mary.
  5. There were four women mentioned in John 19:25, not three: Mary, her sister (Salome), Mary the mother of Cleopas’ children, and Mary Magdalene.
  6. After Jesus selected the twelve apostles, his “brethren” still did not believe in Him.6 Therefore, neither James, nor Judas, nor Joses, nor Simon (all named as “brethren” of the Lord) could have been among the apostles.7  Nor could Matthew have been a brother of the Lord, for he was one of the twelve that had already been chosen.

In short, James, the son of Alphaeus, was not the brother of the Lord, nor were any others among the twelve.

Traditions About James, the Son of Alphaeus

The Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles claims that James was of the tribe of Gad.8

One tradition says that James was preaching in Jerusalem, which angered the Jews greatly, and they drug him before Claudius,9 making accusations against him, and Claudius commanded him to be stoned to death.10

Most of the traditions surrounding James come from the Catholic Church, which wrongfully identifies him as James, the brother of the Lord.11

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40.

2 This is based on a misreading of John 19:25, which lists four women.  The Catholic Church claims there is only three: Mary, her sister (also named Mary), and Mary Magdalene.

3 Bishop Lightfoot argues this, though it goes against the evidence given in John 7:5, and the fact that Matthew is never mentioned in the listing of Jesus’ “brothers.”

4 Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55.

5 Mark 6:3.

6 John 6:70-71 shows that Jesus had already selected the twelve apostles; and just five verses later, John informs us that His brethren still didn’t believe in Him.  Thus, James the son of Alphaeus cannot be one of the “brethren” of the Lord.

7 See also John 7:3, where the brethren of Jesus distinguish between themselves and the disciples of Jesus; showing that they did not consider themselves to be among that group.

8 See Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, vol. 2, page 50.

9 Whether this is supposed to be the Roman Emperor, or some local ruler (like Herod), isn’t stated in the text from which this legend comes.

10 See “the Martyrdom of Saint James,” in Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, Vol. 2, pages 264-266.

11 See the chapter on that James for more information regarding the traditions surrounding him.

Articles, Books

That Other Guy Named “Jacob” (Part 1)

Leave a comment

Welcome back to our twice-weekly  installment of our still-in-progress book on the apostles.  Starting today, we look at James, the Son of Alphaeus.

Our information regarding this James (whose name, in Greek and Hebrew, is actually “Jacob”) is very scant indeed.  Most of what we know for certain comes from general statements about the apostles in the gospels and Acts.  There is little more than this.

James, the Brother of a Tax Collector

As seen in the last chapter, Matthew (Levi) was also called “the son of Alphaeus.”  Mark is the only one who mentions this fact, and within one chapter, mentions someone else who is “the son of Alphaeus.”1  There is no reason at all to mention Matthew’s father if it wasn’t the same Alphaeus.2  It is possible that James, too, worked with his brother and that they were both tax collectors.  If this is the case, then James may have become a disciple of Jesus the same day.3

Regardless of his occupation, James, like his brother Matthew, was a man from Galilee, like the rest of the apostles4 (except, perhaps, for Judas Iscariot).5

James, the Wee Little Man?

Most writers identify James, the son of Alphaeus, with a man known as “James the less” in Mark 15:40.  The word translated “less” is the Greek word mikro (where we get “micro”).  It’s the same word that was used to describe Zacchaeus, the “wee little man” who was “short of stature.”6  This word can also mean younger, as in the younger brother.  The main reasons given for connecting these two are:

  1. There are three men named “James” who Mark mentions prior to this point, and it would make very little sense to mention—near the end of the gospel—someone being related to a “James” who has nothing to do with the story, and who hasn’t been mention at all. Thus, it must be one of the three men mentioned previously in the book.
  2. James, the son of Zebedee, is always described as such, and is almost always connected with John. Since neither John nor Zebedee are mentioned in Mark 15:40, it cannot be that James.7
  3. James, the brother of the Lord is mentioned only in passing by Mark, so (it is claimed) it cannot be him.8
  4. Therefore (the conclusion goes), it must be James, the son of Alphaeus.9

This sounds good on the surface, but it is based on guesswork.  The evidence is actually more in favor of “James the less” being the brother of Jesus instead of one of the apostles.10

James, the son of Alphaeus

The man known as Alphaeus is said by many to be the same man as Cleophas,11 Cleopas,12 or Clopas,13 due to a similarity in the pronunciation in Hebrew,14 though this is a matter of speculation.15  If indeed Alphaeus is to be identified with one of these men (or both, if Cleophas and Cleopas are the same man), then that would make for quite an impressive family: two apostles, whose parents were both disciples of Jesus—the mother being at the cross, and the father meeting with Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

-Bradley S. Cobb

1 Compare Mark 2:14 with 3:18.

2 Most Bible dictionaries seem to ignore this common sense explanation and say that there were two different men named “Alphaeus.”  The question then arises: If this is the case, why did Mark mention Matthew’s father at all?  Certainly the Roman readers would have had no idea who this Alphaeus was, so it wasn’t as though Mark was appealing to their existing knowledge.  Alphaeus doesn’t appear in the gospel narratives at all, so it wasn’t because Mark was introducing a new character that would appear later.  The only reasonable conclusion is that Matthew (the son of Alphaeus) is the brother of James (the son of Alphaeus).

3 This possibility is mentioned by David Smith in James’ Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, “James, the son of Alphaeus.”

4 Acts 1:11, 2:7.

5 Judas was probably from a small town in Judah.  See the chapter on Judas for more details.

6 Luke 19:2-3.  The phrase “wee little man” is not in the text, but is found in a children’s song about Zacchaeus the tax collector.

7 Matthew 27:56 also confirms this, by identifying the mother of Zebedee’s children as a different woman from “Mary, the mother of James and Joses.”

8 The same thing can be said about James, the son of Alphaeus, as well.  Both he and the brother of the Lord are mentioned just once in Mark’s gospel account.

9 This is compelling to an extent, but it must be pointed out that Mark mentions that the “Mary” who was the mother of “James the less” is also the mother of “Joses.”  The only “Joses” mentioned in Mark is the brother of Jesus (and the brother of James), whose mother is named “Mary” (see Mark 6:3).  So, if we accept this argument, then instead of proving this to be James, the son of Alphaeus, the evidence would actually prove it to be James, the brother of the Lord.

10 See the previous footnote, as well as the section “James the Less” in the chapter on James, the Brother of Jesus.

11 John 19:25

12 Luke 24:18

13 John 19:25, ASV

14 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“Clopas; Cleophas”) says “Upon the philological ground of a variety in pronunciation of the Hebrew root, [Clopas is] sometimes identified with Alpheus, the father of James the Less.”

15 James Hastings’, Dictionary of the Bible (“Cleopas”) says it is “a matter of dispute.”  Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ in the Gospels (“Clopas,” “Cleophas,” and “Cleopas”) shows that there’s not even agreement on whether Cleophas and Cleopas are the same individual, let alone that Alphaeus is another name for one or both of them.  Smith’s Bible Dictionary (“Cleopas”) says “Some think that this [Cleopas] is the same Cleophas as in John 19:25. But, they are probably two different persons. Cleopas is a Greek name, contracted from Cleopater, while Cleophas, or Clopas as in the Revised Version, is an Aramaic name.”