Few figures in history are more powerfully charismatic than Jesus of Nazareth.

The mere

documentation of his works and words is enough to inspire the confidence of over a billion

people in the past two millennia. Even many of his contemporaries found Jesus awe-inspiring

and worthy of their dedication. One has only to recall a few names of the numerous leaders of

the early church as evidence. The most obvious of these ardent followers are “the Twelve,” who,

according to the gospel of Mark, were all too eager to leave their work, their families, and any

certainty of the future upon being called by this mysterious stranger named Jesus. In the New

Testament, the miraculous acts and teachings of Jesus are described in detail. Just as miraculous,

while not as thoroughly explained, is the ease in which the Twelve and other followers of Jesus

left their lives behind and devoted everything to a man they did not immediately understand. As

Walter Rauschenbusch puts it, “[i]t was a bold stroke when he detached the apostles from their

occupations, and even from their families, and attached them to himself. It is a very different

thing to invite men into an organization that will leave them securely in their homes and simply

exact a modicum of activity or sacrifice from them, and, on the other hand, to claim them

entirely1.” It takes a truly charismatic or discernibly significant individual to persuade the masses

that he or she is worth following. As such, it is important for one interested in Christian texts to

dig deeper into the powerful pull towards Christ as portrayed in the gospels. One can better

understand the calling of Christ’s followers academically by looking at research and insight

presented using the methods of various disciplines. In addition, one may, using the gospel of

Mark as a foundation, compare the accounts of the election of the apostles from the four

canonical gospels in order to paint a more accurate and meaningful picture of the truth of the

matter. As the authors of the gospels are often ambiguous in their respective description of the

1
Rauschenbusch, Walter. Jesus as an Organizer of Men. The Biblical World 11 (1898): 104. Accessed December
05, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3136890.
calling of the apostles, reading between the lines and into the context is crucial to understanding

the synoptic and theological traditions surrounding the apparent text. While a study of the

election of the disciples does little in the theological battleground between interpretive doctrines,

it does allow scholarly readers of the Bible to better appreciate the powerful charismatic quality

of Jesus by dissecting the text and examining the implications.

The gospel of Mark presents a brief and straightforward account of the calling of the

followers of Jesus. There are only four particular passages in Mark that deal expressly with

Christ’s calling of disciples (1:16, 2:14, 3:14, 8:34). In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon (Simon

Peter), Andrew, James, and John. The scene is set on the beaches of the Sea of Galilee, and the

four men called here are fishermen. One noticeable point in this text is that the author uses the

words “at once” to describe how quickly Andrew and Simon dropped everything to follow him.

This solidifies their immediate devotion to man they hardly, if at all, knew. However, it is

important to recognize that while many presume that these men had little knowledge of Jesus

prior to his requesting their devotion, there is little textual evidence suggesting that they did not

know him before this. Perhaps Jesus and these four men were well-acquainted prior to Jesus’

departure from Galilee with the men. Evidence supporting the disciples’ prior knowledge of the

nature of Jesus can be found in the gospel of John 1:40-42. In this version of the story, Andrew is

depicted as a follower of John the Baptist who, upon hearing of Jesus’ divinity, followed Jesus

with his brother Simon. Besides a prior knowledge of Jesus’ identity, also absent in Mark and

Matthew is the miracle of the great catch described in the gospel of Luke (5:1-11). Though this

story succeeds in keeping with the author of Luke’s parable-based narrative, the lack of any

primarily obvious reason to follow Jesus as presented by Mark and Matthew better displays the

mystical charismatic power of Jesus. These exclusions also put the first disciples in a more
positive light in the context of the passage because they seem to have an inherent trust in Jesus

despite a perceptibly divine presentation.

Whether or not these first disciples were strangers to Jesus, much can be learned about

the formation of the text using scholarly resources. C.S. Mann (p. 208-209), in the 1986 Anchor

Bible Gospel of Mark2, cites numerous commentaries on this telling of the commission of the

first disciples. “Taylor (p. 168) finds the accounts resting on Petrine reminiscences, with their

eyewitness details. K. L. Schmidt (Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, Berlin: Kaiser Verlag,

1919, p.44) thinks that the constant repetition of details is an indication that we are within the

circles of the earliest tradition. Bultmann (History, pp. 26ff.) puts the narratives under the

heading of a biographical apothegm, presenting an idealized scene deriving from a ‘fishers of

men’ saying.” Mann (p. 209) tends to agree with Bultmann’s take on the origin of the story,

adding, “[t]he fishing metaphor is almost certainly derived from Jer 16:162.” As one can see,

there are numerous beliefs concerning the formation of this and countless other NT accounts.

The significance of the devotion of these first followers has also come into question.

Some are quick to assume, based on historical clues, that the fishermen shown here were poor,

and had little to lose upon following Jesus. This viewpoint is backed by University of La Verne

professor Jonathan Reed on the 2009 Discovery Channel series Who Was Jesus?3 “Well, [the first

disciples] dropped everything, but they didn’t really have much.” However, the indication found

plainly in the text that James and John left their father “in the boat with the hired hands” (Mark

1:20) suggests that the men were at least wealthy enough to hire others to fish with them. This

inclusion is absent in the other gospels, and further suggests that the disciples chose to follow

2
Mann, C.S., transl. The Anchor Bible: Mark. Garden City: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1986.
3
Who Was Jesus? Netflix. Directed by Chris Titus King. New York City: Discovery Channel, 2009.
Jesus despite having a lot to lose. Mann (p. 210) provides further evidence of this by pointing out

that “Luke 5:10 speaks of some of these disciples as ‘partners.’ Certainly in the circumstances of

Galilee at that time, it is unlikely that fishermen were necessarily poor2.” Either way, the

fishermen were leaving much more than just their worldly possessions when they followed

Jesus; they were also leaving their family, friends, and all familiarity of surroundings.

A literary take on the commission of the disciples in Mark is presented by Robert C.

Tannehill in his 1977 article for the Journal of Religion entitled The Disciples of Mark: The

Function of a Narrative Role4. Tannehill asserts that the author of Mark attempted to portray the

disciples in a light that the readers of the time could relate to by displaying both their triumphs

and their downfalls. He uses the commissioning of the disciples as examples (p. 396).

“Immediately after Jesus begins his preaching, the author of Mark tells of the call of four

disciples who will later take their place among the twelve (1:16-20). Jesus’ command to follow

him establishes a norm by which the reader can judge the behavior of the disciples. At this point

the response fits the command. Later in the story Jesus will again call for followers (8:34), but

the subsequent narrative (especially chap. 14) will demonstrate the disciples’ failure.” Here,

Tannehill refers to the lack of understanding and devotion (particularly Peter’s betrayal 14:66-

72) shown by the disciples once Jesus reveals his demands (8:34-38). The immediate loyalty

expressed by the first disciples upon their commission is contrasted by their failure to live up to

Jesus’ teachings of affirmation in the face of persecution (8:34-38), thus providing the reader

with a relatable picture of the flawed Christian follower.

The next passage in Mark related to the election of followers by Jesus comes in his

commissioning of “a Levite” (2:14). This account describes Jesus once again on the shore of the
4
Tannehill, Robert. The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role. The Journal of Religion 57 (1977):
396. Accessed December 05, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201763.
Sea of Galilee, though this time walking through a populated area. He comes to a customs house

and asks a tax collector, “a Levite, son of Alphaeus,” to follow him. The passage then goes on to

describe objections raised by the Pharisees due to Jesus’ eating with “tax collectors and

nonobservant Jews” (2:16) and his response (2:17). This pericope is worthy of interest for a few

reasons. First, the willingness to follow by this man is immediate like that of the first disciples.

However, the consequences of leaving such a profession are much more permanent, as Mann (p.

229) points out. “It has been pointed out by commentators that a decision to follow Jesus would

have been irrevocable for a tax official, whereas the disciples called in 1:16-20 could easily on

occasion have returned to fishing2.” This provides yet further evidence that the gospel of Mark

portrays the followers of Jesus as immediately obedient to his commands despite the

consequences, though this part of the text is present in each synoptic gospel. Second, the overt

singling-out of an individual to join Jesus not definitively named in the Twelve warrants a more

ambiguous definition of “disciple” in Mark. Mann (p. 228) points out the confusion scholars face

in determining the number of permanent disciples and adds that “[t]here may well have been a

large group than is designated ‘the Twelve,’ and the designation may have been an

accommodation to the tribal division of Israel 9cf. Matt 19:28, Luke 22:30).” Here, Mann points

out Jesus’ assigning of the chosen Twelve to “judge the twelve tribes of Israel” in the cited

verses. Third, a linguistic examination of the difference between Mark and Matthew in the stated

identity of the tax collector reveals that the disparity may be due to translation. Mann (p. 229)

asserts that a scribe may have translated the Aramaic “a Levite” as a proper name “Levi2.”

Making this distinction allows for one to reconcile the confusion between the apostle Levi and

the apostle Matthew, thus providing better certainty of harmony regarding the identity of the

disciples between the gospels. Scholars before Mann’s time did not come to the same conclusion.
Willoughby C. Allen, in the 1907 publication of International Critical Commentary St. Matthew

(p. 89), asserts concerning the account in Matthew that “[i]n substituting ‘Matthew’ for ‘Levi,

son of Alphaeus,’ he presumably follows tradition, which identified the Apostle Matthew, cf. 103,

with Levi the toll-gatherer5.” This early insight shows how important linguistic understanding

and availability of texts is to accurately translating an ancient work.

One interesting coincidence, that is absent from mention in any commentaries read by the

present author, is the fact that both the Levite follower in Mark 2 and the apostle James

mentioned in Mark 3 are referred to as a “son of Alphaeus.” Though this may well be a

coincidence, it does beg the question whether the author of Mark is identifying the Levite as

James, son of Alphaeus as opposed to Matthew. This would cause serious consistency issues

between the gospels. Mark 2:13-17, though seemingly mundane, provides an abundance of

insight into the nature and identity of Jesus’ elected followers.

The calling of the twelve primary disciples (3:13-19) preserves forever the names of

some of the most significant leaders in early Christianity, while also inciting arguments between

scholars due to identity crises. Though this text does not display Jesus’ calling of new disciples,

it is still relevant to the discussion of Jesus’ commission of disciples because it shows the

prophetic and practical purpose of these elite followers. As for the authenticity of the names,

Mann (p. 247) points out that “all in all [this passage] has the marks of a very early fixed

tradition. Nor is this all: the functions of the Twelve are very different from those ascribed to the

apostles and elders in Acts 15, and this in turn raises the question (to which no answer seems

possible at present) as to how far the lists of the Twelve in the synoptic gospels represent a

5
Allen, Willoughby, transl. International Critical Commentary St. Matthew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1907.
highly formalized account of what was a loose association of some followers who were close to

Jesus, but who may have been more than twelve in number2.”

Scholars struggle not only with validating the identity of the Twelve but also with the

nature and number of these closest disciples due to a lack of relevant evidence. John Meier (p.

672), in a 1997 article for the Journal of Biblical Literature entitled The Circle of the Twelve: Did

It Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?6, examines the ontology and nature of the disciples by

thoroughly examining the text. He concludes, after a lengthy explanation of his methods, that the

circle did exist. “In brief, when one draws together the arguments from multiple attestations of

sources and forms (Mark, L, John, Q, and pre-Pauline tradition), the argument from

embarrassment, and the argument for the general flow of the NT traditions about the Twelve, and

when one adds to these the grave difficulties under which alternative hypotheses labor, one

position emerges as clearly the more probable: the circle of the Twelve did exist during Jesus’

public ministry5.” Though definite proof of the identity or existence of the Twelve cannot be

found using today’s means, the majority of scholars believe the bulk of evidence supports the

existence of twelve distinct disciples set apart for a specific task by Jesus.

While many agree that the Twelve did exist, there is still a question of their overall

functionality. Mann (p. 248) asserts that “their function (cf. Acts 8:1) was exclusively within the

framework of the Jerusalem community, and when the Jewish Christianity came to an end c. 64-

70 the Gentile communities may not even have known the names of the Twelve with anything

approaching accuracy2.” Mann (p. 248) goes on to point out that Jesus’ instructions for the

Twelve are not acted upon until 6:7, suggesting that the author of Mark wished to show that the

disciples were close personal friends with Jesus before the mission. Meier (p. 639), on the other
6
Meier, John. The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry? Journal of Biblical Literature
116 (1997): 639 and 672. Accessed December 06, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266551.
hand, chooses to show what they were by pointing out what they were not. He asserts that though

many associate the Twelve with “the apostles,” the word is used only to describe a temporary

function of the Twelve in Matthew and Mark. “It is only when the Twelve return from the

temporary mission on which Jesus sent them that, for the one time in his Gospel, Mark uses the

word: ‘And all the apostles rejoined Jesus’ (6:30)5.” Staying true to the original text, one finds

that the author of Mark clearly states that the purpose of the Twelve is to “be with him, to send

them out to make the Proclamation, 15 and with authority to cast out demons” (3:14-15). The

author of Matthew adds the ability to cure ailments and left out their responsibility to spread the

good news. He also speaks of the Twelve as an almost pre-existing entity. The author of Luke, on

the other hand, leaves out their purpose entirely. These inconsistencies provide evidence that,

most obviously, the respective authors had different purposes behind their writing. Second, it

suggests a difference in source material between the authors. The calling of the Twelve is a

widely-debated topic in biblical discussion, and many solutions will remain uncertain until

further physical evidence is discovered.

The fourth and final passage (8:31-9:1) involving commission of followers in Mark is the

first and only instance of those mentioned in which Jesus provides qualifications for following

him, in the form of loyalty and selflessness. Though this passage only loosely deals with the call

to serve Jesus in the same way as the previously analyzed passages, it is significant and relevant

to the study because it illustrates the attributes Jesus’ presumably looked for in those he chose to

surround himself with. The attitude expressed in the readiness to serve of the disciples

commissioned in previously explored passages (1:16, 2:14) exemplifies the attitude Jesus

demands of his followers here. When Simon, Andrew, John, James, and the Levite left their

worldly treasures behind to follow Jesus, they each essentially became a man who “will let
himself be lost for [Jesus’] sake and for the Proclamation…” (8:35). Though in the end it is

shown that the Twelve (most notably Peter and, of course, Judas Iscariot) will fail to uphold

these demands, in their election by Jesus they set the precedent for unwavering loyalty and

selflessness. This, in the tradition of the aforementioned literary interpretation established by

Tannehill4, provides evidence that the disciples can be viewed (regardless of the author’s intent)

as flawed Christian followers experiencing the same degree of fiery vigor for Jesus and

disheartening falls from grace as present day Christians, thus creating realistic, relatable

characters for the reader.

While the bulk of the commentary surrounding this pericope analyzes the prediction of

the Passion narrative, a bit is said in relation to the necessary requirements of discipleship stated

in Mark 8:34. Mann (p. 348) argues that the verses succeeding verse 34 are derived from a

“collection of sayings on various occasions.” He goes on to point out that the insertion of these

quotations at this point in the narrative was “a stroke of editorial genius,” as it provided counsel

for church communities “where loyalties were being put to a severe test2.” Also significant is

Mann’s point (p. 349) that all three synoptic gospels “emphasize the free will of those who

would be disciples—Anyone who wants2.” Despite the seemingly minimal connection this

passage makes with the theme of Jesus’ election of disciples, the qualifications for discipleship

presented here speak volumes about the nature of the selections made by Christ.

If one studies the way in which Jesus commissioned his followers, he becomes not only a

teacher, savior, or miracle worker, but also a mystical and charismatic organizer. If one studies

the way in which the early disciples gave up everything to instinctively follow a mysterious

stranger, they become not only elite helpers of Christ, but also supreme examples of selflessly

devoted Christians. Couple this with their inadequacies in the latter stages of the narrative, and
the disciples become realistic, relatable examples of flawed Christian followers. The gospel of

Mark, despite its unpopularity by many in the church and academia, proves itself to be a subtle,

yet straightforward narrative of the life and lessons of Jesus of Nazareth. Taking the gospel of

Mark’s version of the selection of disciples, coupled with commentary, critical analysis, and

comparison to other gospels, leads to a rich insight into the nature of following as a theological

theme. In Mark, the disciples are told to follow, and follow they do—not perfectly, but in a way

Christians then and today can relate to and learn from.