NEW TESTAMENT CHARACTERS.

SIMON THE ZEALOT.
All we know for certain about Simon the Zealot is that he was, or had been, a member of the Zealot or Cananaean party, and that when the apostles went out in twos he was paired with Judas Iscariot.

Judas is described in John 6:71 as Simon’s son - but Simon was a very common name. Iscariot probably means from Kerioth, a place in Judea, but some have linked it with the Siccarii - a more extreme sect of the Zealots.

Even if there was neither family nor political connection between them however, Simon had gone out preaching with Judas and at that time there must have been a bond of some sort between them. We might compare Simon with the Old Testament character Eliam, who remained loyal to David even though his father Ahithophel was the arch traitor and Old Testament equivalent of Judas.

The Zealots.
The Zealots (or Cananaeans) were the nationalist party, dedicated to freedom from Rome and its vassals, including Herod. The party was strongest in the northern rural province of Galilee.

The other parties were, the Sadducees and the Herodians, both of whom collaborated with Rome, the Pharisees who concentrated on religion and legalistic morals and the Essenes who did the same but in a monastic other-worldly way.

Sadducees, Herodians and Pharisees were opponents of Christ. Zealots did not oppose Him but were, perhaps, competitors for the hearts and minds of younger people. Zealots wanted Christ on their side. He would, they believed, make a good revolutionary leader.

But the Zealot cause, however just, was hopeless. It would be three centuries before Rome was weak enough to be resisted. Zealots who fought were sacrificing their lives for a hopeless ideal. This was what Christ foresaw when he wept for Jerusalem, “If only you knew what your peace depended on.” When, ultimately, the majority in Jerusalem refused to follow Christ, they left themselves with an empty void which only Zealots could fill. Sadducees and Herodians were hated, Pharisees and Essenes were boring. Apart from Christ, there was no one worth following, no cause worth serving, nothing to attract young people - except the Zealots. And the Zealots led them to a hopeless revolt which ended in the massacres of Jerusalem (AD 70) and Masada (AD 73). It did not take Christ’s supernatural knowledge to foresee this disaster. Anyone with political insight could have seen the natural cause and effect which would lead to it.

Simon found the true Messiah, without whom the Zealot cause was meaningless.


MATTHIAS.
Jesus chose the twelve out of many. They were not His only disciples by any means, and of the others, some continued to follow consistently to the end.

The one occasion when we realise just how many and how dedicated they were is the mission of the seventy (Luke 10). Jesus had sent out the twelve in pairs, they had returned, now he sent out another seventy, also in pairs, to travel through the villages declaring the message He had given them, and doing miracles in His name.

After the resurrection He gave His followers The Great Commission - to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The mission of the seventy was hands-on training for what was to come. Jesus taught, but He also trained - the hard way, by thrusting His followers out into the task. Not only among the apostles who would eventually lead them, but among the workers they were to lead, Jesus created a pattern of outgoing evangelism, not stay-at-home piety.

When Judas was gone, Peter called the apostles together to appoint a successor (Acts 1). The qualification was that the new apostle must have been one of their companions from the start, when John was Baptising, right through until after the resurrection.

A lot of loyalty went into that. Matthias had not been chosen as one of the twelve. He must have been one of the seventy. He stuck with it and was eventually chosen.

When the short list was down to two they drew lots (having prayed first of course). This may not be the best way to choose people for important roles, but as everyday management experience teaches us, it is certainly not the worst. At least Matthias did not suffer the indignity of being voted on by a committee.

Did they get it right?
There are commentators who suggest that the apostles ought not to have filled the gap then; that if they had waited the place should have been filled by Paul. This idea shows a wrong understanding of the meaning of apostleship.

It is not a status but a task, not a rank but a role. And like most tasks it is best done in teams. The twelve made up the prototype team, trained by Christ. It planted the prototype church, the church in Jerusalem which set the pattern for others. The twelve were also commissioned to ensure Christ’s own teachings were recorded and passed on (Matthew 28:20). They were also witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:22).

Later there was another critical apostolic team (Acts 11:19-21) which planted a church, at Antioch. This became the springboard for mission. From Antioch, Paul was sent to the Gentiles. He led the team which carried the Gospel into Europe and he also spearheaded the presentation of Christ’s teaching to sophisticated Greek thinkers. These were vital tasks, but they were not the same as the task of the twelve.

It was Matthias, not Paul, who shared the instruction of converts at Pentecost, the teaching from house to house, the building up of the first Christian community, the preparation of its members to go out into the world with the Gospel.

The question might perhaps be raised as to whether he would have done just that, even if he had never been given any formal appointment. Maybe he would. Maybe the disciple who lost the toss, did anyway. Many others did. All the same we have much to learn from Matthias.

Acts 1:15-26.

THE APOSTLES WIVES.
Jesus healed Peter’s wife’s mother, but it was not only Peter who was married. Most of them were, although at the time Jesus was with them they were young men and may have been single at that stage.

Some twenty years later, however, Paul refers to the fact that Peter (Cephas) and the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers took their wives with them on their travels.

There is no mention, however, of wives accompanying the apostles on the travels they made with Jesus. This raises several questions.

How much of the time did they spend on trek? We tend to assume that after their call and appointment as apostles, the band was together and on the move continuously, but we have no sure grounds for that assumption. It is equally possible that Jesus took them on a series of journeys with periods at home in between.

Quite apart from their special missions, the way of life of a Galilean Jew in those days included regular trips to Jerusalem for the feasts, several days’ walk each time. Much of Christ’s ministry was in Jerusalem at the feasts which the apostles would have attended anyway (with their wives unless they had young children.)

Undoubtedly the apostles did sacrifice some of their family life to go on tour with Jesus but probably with home breaks between trips.

The other possibility is that the wives, or some of them, were part of the travelling party. At Pentecost the whole group numbered 120 and included the women.

References.
Peter’s wife’s mother healed Matthew 8:14-15 Mark 1:29-31 Luke 4:38-39
Wives travelling with apostles 1 Corinthians 9:4-6