Jesus and His Disciples:

The Beginnings of Their Organization

by Chana Safrai

Among the traditions about Jesus, a special place is reserved for those con-
cerning the role of his disciples. The high point is doubtless Jesus’ revelation
to them following his death, and the command to spread his teaching, win
souls and preach the way of life of the revered teacher. “Go forth, therefore,
and make all nations my disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age”
(Mt. 28:19-20). “Go forth to every part of the world and proclaim the Gospel to
the whole creation” (Mk. 16:16). “Anyone who loves me will observe my word,
and my Father will love him...” (Jn. 14:23).
In the spiritual world of the authors of the various Gospels and of the Acts
of the Apostles, every aspect of the disciples’ activity is portrayed in terms of
this overall tendency — namely the unique and important mission of these
disciples who are known as “apostles” (Mt. 10:2; Lk. 6:13). The joining of the
various disciples to the circle of those surrounding the teacher Jesus, their elec-
tion as disciples-companions, their deeds while in the presence of the master,
the criticism directed against Jesus as the result of his disciples’ behavior, and
the mission that they took upon themselves following the death of their illus-
trious master and teacher — all imbued with an aura of the unique and the
miraculous. These details were also repeatedly interpreted in this spirit in
Church exegesis during subsequent generations.
Whatever was unique about these events, however, they were not without
parallels. This area of the life and mission of Jesus, like many others, seems to
be anchored in the world of the Jewish sages of the end of the Second Temple
period. Careful examination of the relevant rabbinic sources will elucidate the
manner in which a group of disciples came into being around this young

The Hebrew original of this article was translated by Jonathan Chipman.

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 95

Galilean teacher, how Christianity started on its long path, and what its first
steps were in the generation of its original adherents. It will also allow us better
to understand the nature of the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and his
leading disciple — Simon Peter.
At the very root of the tradition of the Oral Torah, and specifically in the
rabbinic understanding of the tradition of the Torah and its study, lies the
principle of the instruction and cultivation of disciples. According to the
opening of Tractate Avot, “They [i.e., the men of the Great Assembly] said
three things — be deliberate in judgment, and raise up many disciples, and
make a fence around the Torah” (Avot 1:1). Note also the saying of R. Ishmael:
“He who learns in order to teach, is given the ability to learn and to teach...”
(Avot 4:5).
The tradition says much about the students of the various sages. It more
than once records the large number of disciples who were attached to such
figures as Hillel the Elder (Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Schechter ed., p. 29) or
Rabbi Akiva (bKetuvot 62b). The numerous descriptions of the masses of
people who came to hear Jesus’ preaching and words at the beginning of his
mission can be understood in this same spirit. The Sermon on the Mount even
opens in this manner (see Mt. 5:1), while Matthew describes Jesus’ activity in
Galilee as follows: “And great crowds followed him, from Galilee and De-
capolis and Jerusalem and Judea, and beyond the Jordan” (Mt. 4:25). Parallels
occur in the other Gospels (Mk. 3:7—8; Lk. 6:17).
The descriptions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth found in the Gospels relate
the attraction of the teacher to his unique powers as a healer or to his being a
person of unusual authority and power (e.g., Lk. 7:16-17). There can be no
doubt, however, that the general manner of his activity, as a teacher who in-
structed and attracted many listeners and disciples to follow his teaching, fits
into the framework of the patterns of Torah study known to us from other
sources and traditions in Jewish society of the end of the Second Temple
period.

Calling of the Disciples in the Synoptic Gospels

Within the overall context of the masses of people flowing to hear and to
understand, to see and to meet the teacher, the Gospel tradition recounts how
certain outstanding disciples came to follow Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate
that Jesus spoke to some fishermen, Simon and Andrew, whom he asked to be-
come his disciples, and shortly afterwards to the two sons of Zebedee, James
and John: “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Mt. 4:19; Mk.
1:17). Those who joined the circle of his disciples were simple folk who were
captivated by his words and attracted to his person and his teaching.
To some extent this picture resembles the beginnings of such noted sages
as Rabbi Akiva, who was originally an ignorant simple shepherd,1 or R. Eliezer

1. On the purely literary-ideational plane, a distinction may be drawn between the im-
age of the fisherman, who catches fish in his net, and that of the shepherd, who cares
for and worries about his flock. Two comments, however, should be made. 1) The
difference can be seen, at least in part, as geographical. Fishing and fishermen were
part of the scenery of actual life in the specific region in which the historical Jesus

96 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

ben Hyrcanus, the youngest and unsuccessful son of a farmer, who ran away to
take asylum in the study house of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai (Avot de-Rabbi
Nathan 15a-b and parallels). Not all the Jewish sages who attained positions of
leadership attracted simple folk, but the Judaic tradition takes pride in the ac-
counts of scholars who rose from the poor and unlearned classes to take their
place in the ranks of the leading scholars.
The Gospel of Luke, too, relates how Simon, Andrew, James and John joined
Jesus, but its account has a different context from Matthew and Mark, and there
are slightly different emphases regarding the nature of the circle of the disci-
pies and their connection to their teacher. Their joining is prefaced with an
account of a miracle and an act of salvation. The two pairs of future disciples
together constituted a team of fishermen who, to their misfortune, were unable
to catch any fish. Jesus entered Simon’s boat and told him to go into the deep
water and cast his nets, which immediately became completely filled with fish
to the point of splitting. When Simon saw what had happened, “he fell at Jesus’
knees and said: ‘Leave me, Lord, sinner that I am!’ For astonishment seized
him and all who were with him at the catch of fish they had taken.... ‘Do not
be afraid,’ said Jesus to Simon, ‘from now on you will be catching men alive’”
(Lk. 5:1-11). Luke’s account concludes with all four of them joining the circle
surrounding Jesus: “As soon as they had brought the boats to land, they left
everything and followed him” (v. 11).
A similar dedication is expressed in the accounts of Mark and Matthew,
although there it is only emphasized in connection with James and John. Jesus
“called them, and at once, leaving the boat and their father, they followed
him” (Mt. 4:21-22); he “immediately called them and, leaving their father Zeb-
edee in the boat with the hired men, they went away after him” (Mk. 1:20). Thus
these accounts, too, emphasize the immediate devotion to Jesus displayed by
these new disciples, manifested in their sacrifice of their livelihood and their
separation from their families.
Luke’s story of the miraculous assistance offered by Jesus to the unfortunate
fishermen is missing in Matthew and Mark, though interestingly developed at
the end of the Gospel of John. It makes the teacher’s charisma dependent not
so much upon his teaching per se, as on the fact that he helped the fishermen
— not his words but his deeds convinced them to join him. By the miraculous
act of Jesus, the fishermen acquired wealth, yet simultaneously realized that
wealth was of little importance. This made them ready to “leave everything,”
relying upon the mercies of their master and teacher. In Simon’s reaction to
the miracle — “Leave me, Lord, sinner that I am!” (Lk. 5:8) — he assumes that
a saint and miracle-worker like Jesus would not be permitted to associate with
one who is considered a sinner. Apparently he interprets his preceding ill-luck
in his work as a punishment and as a proof of his sinfulness. Here, as else­

was active, while shepherding was more typical of the life of the Jewish people in the
hill country of Judea and Galilee. 2) Even on the literary plane, the early Christian
tradition saw the two images as equivalent. In the Gospel of John, therefore, when
Jesus appears to Peter following his death, he calls upon him to tend his sheep (fn.
21:15 ff.).

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 97

where, Luke stresses Jesus’ willingness to approach sinners and assist them to
turn from their wicked ways.
Three prominent features of the account in Luke have thus far been noted:
the emphasis upon miraculous acts, the abandonment of a settled and orderly
way of life in favor of a life of poverty shared with the master, and the willing-
ness to associate with sinners. Shmuel Safrai has already noted that rabbinic
society included a group of saintly sages (hakhamim-hasidim) who, by their
way of life and their deeds, embodied all of the above-mentioned characteris-
tics.2 Note that the reluctance to have dealings with sinners stems in principle
from punctiliousness concerning the laws of purity and pollution (toharah we-
turn’ah). Sinners are presumed to be either ritually polluted or uneducated
people Qamei ha-aretz) who cannot be relied upon to observe these laws
properly, such that contact with them should be minimized. In some cases,
hasidim were themselves accused of not observing the laws of ritual pollution
and impurity properly. Jesus answers such charges by arguing that the reward
of one who is strict is counterbalanced by the loss of the sinner, who is com-
pared to a sick person who has not received the necessary medical treatment:
“It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick” (Lk. 5:31; cf. Mt. 9:12 and
Mk. 2:17).
Matthew and Mark stress that James and John abandoned not merely the
boat, the source of their organized livelihood, but their own father as well.
Splits within the family are among the signs of the “End of Days,” or of the
tumultuous period immediately preceding it: “For son spurns father, daughter
rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law: a man’s own
household are his enemies” (Mic. 7:6). This verse is worked into Jesus’ instruc-
tions to his disciples (at Mt. 10:33) in a fiery speech which has a clearly escha-
tological flavor. The speech does not occur in Mark and Luke except in frag-
mentary form. Yet one fragment in Luke (Lk. 12:51-53, paralleling Mt. 10:34-36)
does characterize separation from the home as a sign of upheaval characteris-
tic of times of trouble. It is thus notable that the eschatological allusions in the
Matthean and Markan accounts of the calling of the disciples are absent in the
account of Luke. In the decision of the disciples to join their teacher Jesus and
no longer to engage in fishing, Luke simply portrays a social reality clearly
taken from the world of the sages, which he in no way sees as a premessianic
sign. In this respect, Luke’s description is similar to that of the beginnings of
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus’ sojourn in the school of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai
(Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Schechter ed., 15b).
All the Synoptic Gospels subsequently recount the incident of Levi (or Mat-
thew), whom Jesus noticed sitting in the tax house and invited to join him. The
latter got up and followed him (Mt 9:9; Mk. 2:13-14; Lk. 5:27-28), becoming one
of the disciples. This incident of a sinful tax-gatherer, which again is related to

2. S. Safrai, “The Teachings of Hasidim in Tannaitic Literature” (Hebrew), We-Hinneh

Ain Yosef: Qovez le-Zikhro shel Yosef Amorai (Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 136-152, and
“Hasidim and Miracle-Workers” (Hebrew), Zion 50 (Zion Jubilee Volume, 1935-
1985), 133-154.

98 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

Jesus’ attitude to questions of purity and pollution, constitutes an addition to
the original tight group of followers.3
At a somewhat later stage, this group of disciples became organized into a
band of twelve men (Mt. 10:1—4; Mk. 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16), who were to become
the twelve apostles appointed by Jesus to spread his teaching (Mt. 10:1-16; Mk.
6:8-11; Lk. 6:12-16). David Flusser has already discussed at length how this stage
in the organization of the group of disciples was both ideologically and orga-
nizationally influenced by the positions taken by the Essene sect. At the same
time, this stage also belongs to the lifetime of the master himself, and already
existed in the earliest stages of the new Christian organization.4

Calling of the Disciples in John

Whereas the miraculous catch of fish is described close to the beginning of
the Gospel of Luke, it appears in the last chapter of John’s Gospel. It is no
longer a tale concerned with the joining of the disciples, but “the third time
that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead” (Jn.
21:14). A small circle of disciples is sitting together on the shore of the Sea of
Galilee, apparently having returned to their profession of fishermen. They are
Simon, Thomas (“the Twin”), Nathanael of Cana-in-Galilee, the two sons of
Zebedee and two others from Galilee. Simon, who initiates the decision to go
out and fish, is again the active figure. At daybreak, the resurrected Jesus asks
them if they have anything to eat. When they admit to being empty-handed, he
instructs them to cast the net on the right side of the boat, and after doing so
“they could not haul the net aboard for the quantity of fish” (v. 6). Again,
“Simon Peter went aboard and dragged the net to land, full of big fish, a hun-
dred and fifty-three of them; and yet, many as they were, the net was not torn”
(v. 11). The miraculous aspect is further emphasized by the fact that, when the
fishermen came ashore, they found that a meal had already been prepared for
them: “they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish laid on it, and some bread” (v.
9), and Jesus “came up, took the bread, and gave it to them, and likewise the
fish” (v. 13).
Of the three prominent features of Luke’s description noted earlier, clearly
the miracle is the one most strongly emphasized in John. On the other hand,
the fact that the Lord’s disciples sacrificed their livelihood when they joined
him is somewhat obscured. Nevertheless, their retroactive dependence upon
his miraculous ability to take care of them is stressed emphatically and repeat-
edly. The account in John also contains a veiled reference to the third aspect,
namely Simon’s sinfulness. When Simon heard from the beloved disciple that
the man on the shore was Jesus, “he wrapped his coat about him, for he was
stripped, and plunged into the sea” (Jn. 21:7). This impulsive and unexplained
action of Simon may be a somewhat peculiar reworking of Luke’s description

3. See previous note.

4. See D. Flusser, “The Pesher of Isaiah and the Notion of the Twelve Apostles in Early
Christianity” (Hebrew), Eretz-Israel 8 (1967), 52-62, reprinted in his Jewish Sources
in Early Christianity (Tel-Aviv, 1979), pp. 283-304, and the bibliography there.

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 99

of Simon’s falling at the feet or knees of the master, wondering how such an
outstanding person was willing to associate with sinners like himself.
The beginning of John’s Gospel has its own account of how the disciples
joined the living Jesus. John’s list includes two of the followers of John the Bap-
tist (Jn. 1:37-40). One of these was Andrew, the brother of Simon (1:41), who
presented his teacher to Simon (w. 4 2 4 3 ‫ ;)־‬they were then joined by Philip
from the same town (v. 44), who in turn convinced Nathanael to join them (w.
48-49). Two of these five disciples — Simon and Nathanael — are explicitly
named in the list of disciples who sat by the shore of the Sea of Galilee follow-
ing the master’s death and participated in the miraculous catch of fish.
John’s description provides an entire series of explanations for how the
various disciples, each in his own way, successively came and joined the circle.
These explanations seem close in spirit specifically to the meetings described
in Matthew and Mark. The first pair of disciples acknowledges the importance
of Jesus after spending time in the company of John the Baptist, at whose
inspiration they join Jesus and go over to live with him. Simon meets his
teacher in the company of his brother, and is received with blessings by the
master. Philip, the fourth one, is invited by the teacher himself to join the
group, just as in Matthew and Mark the two sons of Zebedee are asked to join
the group already consisting of Simon and Andrew (Mt. 4:18-22; Mk. 1:16-20).
When Philip calls Nathanael to recognize Jesus and his place in the divine
plan (Jn. 1:46), Nathanael is not easily convinced, asking with characteristic
contempt: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Despite his skepticism,
eventually he joins with the master’s blessing.
This last addition to the list of disciples has some eschatological features
woven into its description. These are clearly expressed in the promise given by
the master: “Is this the ground of your faith, that I told you I saw you under the
fig-tree? You shall see greater things than that” (v. 50). The mention of the fig-
tree presumably alludes to a certain repeated motif in the words of Jesus of
Nazareth,5 and may have some relation to the possible eschatological hints,
mentioned above, in Matthew’s description of the joining of the sons of
Zebedee.

Groups of Disciples of Jewish Sages

There are thus a number of different traditions about the calling of the dis-
ciples of Jesus in Gospel literature: a tradition concerning four disciples in the
Synoptic Gospels, and traditions of five and even seven in John. Similar tradi-
tions about small groups of disciples attached to Jewish sages occur in other
literature from the end of the Second Temple period and thereafter.6 Ezra has
five disciples who accompany him in his activities (4 Ezra 12:42). Rabban
Johanan ben Zakkai likewise has five disciples (Avot 2:8-9).

5. The fig-tree cursed during the entrance to Jerusalem (Mt. 21:19-20; Mk. 11:13-14); the
blossoming of the fig-tree and the other trees at the end of summer as symbol of the
end (Lk. 21:29). Cf. the midrash on the verse, “the fig-tree has put forth its green
figs...” (Song of Songs 2:13).
6. Flusser, “The Pesher of Isaiah,” p. 298, and notes there.

100 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

 With Rabbi Akiva, however, several different groups of close disciples are
mentioned. One group is seen as the founders of the tannaitic literature: “An
ordinary [i.e., unidentified] mishnah follows R. Meir; an ordinary tosefta fol-
lows R. Nehemiah; an ordinary sifra follows R. Judah; an ordinary sifrei follows
R. Simeon; and all of them follow the tradition of R. Akiva” (bSanhedrin 86a).
Another group of four close disciples is mentioned in “an incident involving
four elders, who sit by the gate of R. Joshua: Eleazar ben Mattya, Hananiah ben
Hakhinai, Simeon ben Azzai, and Simeon ha-Timni were engaged in what
Rabbi Akiva had taught them...” (tBerakhot 4:18).
A third tradition enumerates five special disciples of R. Akiva: “...until R.
Akiva came to our teachers in the south and taught them: R. Meir, R. Judah, R.
Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar ben Shammua, and they preserved the Torah at
that time...” (bYevamot 62b). A fourth tradition explicitly states that there were
seven: “...had he not raised up seven disciples in his old age...” (Tanhuma,
hayyei Sarah 6). A parallel gives their names: “In the end he raised up seven
disciples, who were: R. Judah, R. Nehemiah, R. Meir, R. Jose, R. Simeon ben
Yohai, R. Eliezer son of R. Jose ha-Galili, and R. Johanan ha‫־‬Sandlar”
(Ecclesiastes Rabbah 10). The same number, with a similar list, appears in the
account of the intercalation of the leap year at Beit Rimmon: “It came about
that seven elders went in to intercalate the (leap) year in Bik’at Beit Rimmon,
and who were they? R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon, R. Nehemiah, R.
Eleazar ben Jacob, and R. Johanan ha-Sandlar...” (jHagigah 3:5).
All in all, each of the outstanding sages mentioned would seem to have
been surrounded by one or more small groups which were considered to form
his intimate circle. These might include some individuals who were closer,
generally mentioned in each group, as well as others who were attached more
loosely.

Tensions Between Disciples

We have thus far been concerned with the question of the banding of iso-
lated individuals into a distinct circle of disciples, and their organization into
one circle identified as Jesus’ disciples. We shall now turn to two incidents in
the realm of their internal relations.
The Gospel tradition notes a certain tension between the disciples. Even
though they seem externally to be a united and well-defined group, they can
compete for superiority or prominence within it.
In the Gospel of Mark, the two sons of Zebedee approach Jesus and ask of
their teacher a special favor: “Grant us the right to sit one at your right and the
other at your left in your glory” (Mk. 10:36). This request to share in Jesus’
glory offended the entire circle of the disciples: “When the other ten heard
this, they began to be indignant at James and John” (v. 41). In this version, it
was Jesus’ task to admonish the two, while simultaneously calming the spirits of
the others and trying to guide them toward a sense of equality among them-
selves and a different perception of societal and group arrangements. In the
Gospel of Matthew, it was not these two disciples themselves, but their mother

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 101

who approached with such a request of the master (Mt. 20:20-21), arousing a
storm among the disciples.7
This story may be no more than a literary elaboration by Mark and
Matthew of the dispute about “who shall rank highest” that Luke recounts in
connection with the Last Supper (Lk. 22:24). In any event, a tradition evidently
exists regarding certain tensions within the group.
Such debates about preeminence among disciples are also familiar from
traditions in the world of the sages. Speaking of his disciples, Rabban Johanan
ben Zakkai is said to have remarked: “If all the sages of Israel were in one pan
of the scales, and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in the other, he would outweigh them
all” (Avot 2:8). According to another tradition, however, Abba Saul said in his
name: “If all the sages of Israel were in one pan of the scales, including even
Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus among them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh in the
other, he would outweigh them all” (ibid.). Evidently, the second claim is
explicitly formulated in such a way as to reject the first. It is true that in this
case the opposing claims are not put forward by the disciples themselves, but
about them. Nevertheless, the question here is still essentially the same: who is
most important among them? The authority of the master himself is claimed
for both of the competing viewpoints.
A dispute about preeminence seems also to lie behind a story from the life
of a disciple of Rabbi Akiva. “...R. Meir sat down first, and R. Simeon’s face
turned yellow. R. Akiva said to him: ‘Enough, for both I and your Creator rec-
ognize your power’” (jSanhedrin 19a). R. Meir was ordained before R. Simeon,
but the latter seems to have thought himself sufficiently outstanding to deserve
priority; R. Akiva’s task was to calm the spirits of both. The death by plague of
the original students of R. Akiva is explained by some later sources as a pun-
ishment “because they did not respect one another” (bYevamot 62b). Accord-
ing to a variant on this theme:
He [Rabbi Akiva] said to them [his later group of either five or seven dis-
ciples]: “The former ones died only because they were jealous regarding
one another’s Torah. You should not be this way.” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah,
ch. 10)8
It is immaterial that these may not be wholly historical accounts but later
literary reworkings of the actual incidents themselves. They clearly show that it
was accepted within the rabbinic tradition to talk about tensions, jealousy and
the desire for honor among close disciples who spent much time in one an­

7. The formula in Matthew would appear to be more reliable, as it is difficult to under-

stand how the evangelist changed the account in Mark into the peculiar story in
which the mother is the one who seeks honor for her son. It is more likely that it was
Mark who felt the need to alter this “too human” story to one more respectable and
probable within the circle of the disciples. In the near future, I hope to investigate the
historical information and literary traditions concerning “great mothers” in the
Temple period.
8. Compare also Genesis Rabbah 61:3; Yalqut Shimoni, part 1, 11:6. A precise compari-
son of all versions of the story in the full range of amoraic sources makes it clear be-
yond a doubt that this developed as an aggadic story; it is highly doubtful whether it
has any historical basis at all.

102 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

other’s company, while the master and teacher saw it as his responsibility to
calm and to make peace among his disciples, exactly as Jesus is reported to
have done in the dispute mentioned above.
The rabbinic tradition is interested in retelling these events, not primarily
out of historical interest, but as an expression of the social messages that it
wished to pass on to its readers. The attempts to rank the disciples of Rabban
Johanan ben Zakkai reflect different views about what kind of scholar most ad-
vances the study of Torah. Is it the traditional type of sage who goes over what
he has learnt many times and is strict about preserving the tradition — e.g., R.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who was called “a whitewashed pit which does not lose a
drop”? Or is it the creative sage who expands his knowledge — the “flowing
spring” — e.g., R. Eleazar ben Arakh? Similarly, the account of the deaths of R.
Akiva’s disciples in the plague was intended to teach a clear ethical-religious
message, namely the obligation of those who study Torah, as of all Jews in gen-
eral, to respect one another. Likewise, the incident of the sons of Zebedee is an
instructive one within the overall social-pietistic teaching implied by both the
stories and the sayings of Jesus.

Conferring Uniqueness on Disciples

All the Gospels acknowledge and emphasize the special role of Simon Peter
among the disciples, and the close relation between the teacher and his prime
disciple. The Christian tradition undoubtedly saw him as the leading disciple
of Jesus and the initial leader of the community of the apostles (Acts 1:15; 2:14,
37; 3:12).
The Gospels ascribe to Jesus a special recognition of Peter from the begin-
ning. In the section describing the appointment of the twelve apostles, the
Gospel of Mark mentions three of the disciples to whom Jesus gave special
names: “So he appointed the twelve: to Simon he gave the name Peter; then
came the sons of Zebedee, James and his brother John, to whom he gave the
name Boanerges, Sons of Thunder...” (Mk. 3:16-17). Luke mentions only Peter
in this respect, who thereby receives a special emphasis enjoyed by none of
the other disciples: “...from among them he chose twelve and named them
apostles: Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter, and Andrew his brother...”
Ok. 6:13-14).
This can be compared with the practice of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai and
other sages, who called their close students by names based upon allegory or
personal traits.9 These names were meant to refer to a characteristic quality of
that disciple’s path in Torah.
Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai had five disciples, to whom he gave names.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus he called “a whitewashed pit which does not lose a
drop, a tarred wineskin which preserves its wine.” Joshua ben Hananiah
he called “the three-fold cord which is not easily broken.” R. Jose ha-
Kohen he called “the pious one of the generation.” And Simeon ben

9. See Flusser, “The Pesher of Isaiah,” and the bibliography there.

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 103

 Nathanael he called “an oasis in the desert which preserves its waters....”
(Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Version A, ch. 14)10
The Gospel of Matthew gives the fullest account of the special name given
to Simon.
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:17-19)11
The highly elevated tone of this passage reflects the evangelist’s sense of
the unique task conferred upon Peter for the entire future Church. So indeed
was Peter’s role understood in subsequent generations. Nevertheless, in this
very passage there are a number of elements also found in the circles of the
sages and their disciples. The giving of the name Peter is followed by an ex-
planation by Jesus of the meaning of that name — i.e., rock — which sounds
like a paraphrase of a biblical verse, even if an exact correspondence cannot
be found. It is reminiscent, for instance, of the situation of Moses when he
sought to see God’s glory. “Behold, there is a place by Me. Station yourself on
the rock and, as My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock...” (Ex.
33:21-22). The fact that “rock” (tzur) can also serve as a metaphor for God en-
abled Jewish homilists to sketch all sorts of sublime connections and to make
daring exegeses concerning the task of Moses and his identification with
God.12 Likewise, it is after calling Simon Bar-Jona a “rock” that Jesus accords
him sublime powers of sharing in, or even of directing, heavenly acts and
world rulership. “Whatever you bind [forbid] on earth shall be bound in
heaven....”
In the rabbinic world, too, starting from the earliest period, sages are re-
ported to have applied verses from Scripture to their disciples. Following the

10. See also M. Higger ed., Masekhet Derekh Eretz (New York, 1935), p. 71, and
Masekhtot Z e’irot (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 75; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Version A, ch. 18;
bGittin 67a. This tradition of “nicknames” goes beyond the framework of teacher
and disciples alone, and can also be encountered in the relations of the sages to one
another. Our concern here is somewhat different from this general tradition.
11. The very uniqueness of this passage among the Gospels arouses the suspicion that it
is a literary reworking by the author. In Mt. 18:18, moreover, the author again repeats
the second half of the saying, “whatever you bind on earth...,” in which the remarks
are addressed to all the disciples. It may be that Matthew conflates the sayings in
order to convey a special status to Peter. Compare Peter’s query in Mt. 18:21-22,
which does not exist at all in the other Gospels, and, on the other hand, the same
subject without Peter in Lk. 17:4.
12. If we are correct in assuming that this verse underlies these midrashim, then Peter
receives one of the titles of God — namely, Rock — while the community which
learns from him and lives with him is compared to Moses, who stands upon the
rock. One may conjecture the power of the special connection of the community,
which sees itself as identified with Moses, the greatest of the prophets and the closest
to God, “who is trusted throughout my household” (Num. 12:7). In “The Pesher of
Isaiah,” p. 292, Flusser mentions a series of homilies that interpret “the rock” as the
Patriarch Abraham.

104 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

story of the unique prayer uttered by Honi ha-Me’aggel, in which he seemingly
coerced God to send rain to end a severe drought, the talmudic account con-
eludes with the reaction of certain homilists:
What did the sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone send to Honi ha-
Ma’aggel? [The verse] “You will decree and it will be fulfilled, and light
will shine upon your path” [Job 22:28]. “You will decree” — you decreed
below and the Holy One, blessed be He, followed your word above. ^
“And light will shine upon your path” — the generation which was in
darkness, you enlightened with your prayer. “When others sank low, you
said it is pride” [v. 29] — you uplifted a generation which was downcast
with your prayer. “For He saves the humble” [ibid.] — you saved a
generation which was bent over by sin with your prayer. “He will deliver
the unclean” [v. 30] — a generation which was not clean, you delivered
with your prayer. “We will be delivered through the cleanness of your
hands” [ibid.] — you saved through the work of your clean hands.
(bTa’anit 23a)
The original meaning of the passage in Job clearly refers to God Himself; it
was an audacious homilist who applied it to a mere man, however great a sage
Honi might have been. Moreover, in the first section of this homily the author
explicitly states that his intention is to stress the identity between Honi ha-
Me’aggel, his act and his prayer, and God, who answers and fulfills his request
— or rather demand.*14 This homily expresses a certain recognition of Honi’s
unique position within the circle of the sages, a recognition which comes from
the leaders of Jerusalem, who shaped the interpretation of the Torah. All this
although Honi’s impudent prayer for rain had aroused the anger of Simeon
ben Shattah (or Shetah), the main leader of the Sanhedrin.
Rabbi Akiva, too, was regarded with a mixture of unease and unique appre-
ciation. There is no doubt that Akiva’s uniqueness lay in his midrashic method.
On more than one occasion, he aroused the ire of his fellow scholars for his
unorthodox method of Torah exegesis.15 On the other hand, the sages also
commented upon the beauty and daring of his exegetical method,16 as in the
following parable ascribed to R. Simeon b. Menasia:
[R. Akiva’s learning is comparable] to a stonemason who was sitting by
the side of a mountain. They said to him: “What are you doing here?” He
answered: “I wish to uproot it.” They said to him: “Are you able to do
such a thing?” He said: “Yes.” He began to carve away small stones and
throw them into the Jordan. He saw another one greater than that, he
placed upon it a nail of iron and thrust it into the Jordan. He saw another
one yet greater, he placed a nail underneath it and thrust it into the Jor -
dan. He said: “Jordan, take this,” [and to the stone he said:] “This is not

13• This section of the homily is very similar to the words of Peter to Jesus according to
Matthew.
14. The type of sermon supposed to have been used by the men of the Chamber of
Hewn Stone is similar to that used by the members of the Dead Sea Sect — the
pesher. I wish to thank my teacher, Prof. David Flusser, for calling my attention to
this source.
15. bHagigah 14a; cf. jYoma 39d and elsewhere.
16. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, Schechter ed., p. 15; jYoma 39d; etc.

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 105

 your place!” As is written: “He sets his hand against the flinty rock and
overturns mountains by the roots” [Job 28:91. R. Akiva thought within him-
self and said: “Why were this Alef and this Bet written? As is written: ‘He
carves out channels through rock; His eyes behold every precious thing’
[v. 10].” R. Eliezer said to Akiva: “About you it is said: ‘He pours light on
secrets’ [v. 11].” Things which were concealed and hidden from the eyes
of human beings, R. Akiva brought to light. (Avot de‫־‬Rabbi Nathan, Ver-
sion B, ch. 12)17
R. Simeon b. Menasia’s parable concerns Akiva’s unique method, whereby
he expounded fragments of letters, extracting the maximal exegesis from every
jot and tittle of the text, so that in the end, so to speak, he uprooted the entire
Torah from its place. Thus a famous aggadic story describes how even Moses
himself no longer recognized the Torah as it was taught and expounded in the
school of Akiva (bMenahot 99a). At the conclusion of the parable comes a
kind of midrash on three verses in Job (28:9-11), of which the part on the last
verse is said to stem from R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus — who was the teacher and
master of Akiva. Here too, accordingly, the teacher of an outstanding disciple
applied a particular scriptural verse to him, preaching a sermon of great power
and no little exegetical daring. A verse which deals entirely with the activity of
God was transformed into a graphic definition of the daring activity of a
beloved student.
Yet another similar tradition, from approximately the same period and
again in the name of the sages of the Chamber of Hewn Stone, concerns R.
Hanina ben Dosa:
An incident concerning R. Hanina b. Dosa, who saw the people of his
town carrying votive and freewill offerings up to Jerusalem. He said:
“Everyone is carrying votive and freewill offerings up to Jerusalem, and I
am not taking up a thing?” What did he do? He went to the wilderness
[around] his town, where he saw a stone, and he lay down and dressed it
and polished it. He said: “I take it upon myself to bring this up to
Jerusalem.” He sought to hire workers, and five people came to him. He
asked them: “Will you take this stone up to Jerusalem for me?” They said
to him: “Pay us five selaim and we will take it up to Jerusalem.” He wished
to pay them, but he could not find any money at the time, so they left it
and went away. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him five angels in the
form of human beings. He asked them: “Will you take this stone up for
me?” They said to him: “Give us five selaim and we will take your stone
to Jerusalem, provided that you put your hands and fingers along to-
gether with ours.” He placed his hand and fingers with theirs, and they

17. In Version A, ch. 6, this sermon is cited in the name of R. Tarfon, a colleague of R.
Akiva, and includes mention of only one part of the midrash: “...Thus did R. Akiva
do to R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. R. Tarfon said to R. Akiva: ‘Of you the verse says, “He
dams up the sources of the streams so that hidden things may be brought to light”
[Job 28:11] — things hidden from human beings R. Akiva has brought to light.’”
Only the text in Version B is similar in literary structure to the homily of the men
of the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the story of Honi. In both versions, the original
text appears to be garbled. It may be that there is here a full exegesis of Job 28:9-11,
which the preacher — perhaps R. Eliezer, who was R. Akiva’s teacher — applied to R.
Akiva and his work in studying Torah.

106 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990

 found themselves standing in Jerusalem. He wanted to pay them, and
could not find them. He went into the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked
after them. They said to him: “It seems that ministering angels carried
your stone up to Jerusalem.” To him they applied the verse: “Have you
seen a man who is quick in his work? — he shall stand before kings
[m elakhim ]” [Prov. 22:291; read there “before angels [m al’akhim ]”
(Ecclesiastes Rabbah, ch. 1)
Like Honi ha-Me’aggel, R. Hanina b. Dosa belonged to the circle of the
hasidim, a characteristic part of whose activity involved the miraculous events
associated with them.18 Thus it was that angels helped him to carry his stone
up to Jerusalem. When the men of the Chamber of Hewn Stone applied the
verse from Proverbs to this unusual and miraculous event, they conferred a
unique status upon this sage and his activity.
It seems that the passages from the Gospels cited earlier in this section may
be understood in the same way. The teacher Jesus notes the talents of his dis-
ciples, and in a propitious time applies to them allusions from Bible and
Midrash, typical of his activity as a sage and a leader in his community.
The statement in Matthew’s Gospel, “whatever you bind [forbid] on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [allow] on earth shall be
loosed in heaven,” must be seen within the same framework. From now on,
Peter is given permission, and perhaps even the obligation, to lead the
community and to make decisions — at times even important and unconven-
tional decisions — in the spirit of what he has learned. Jesus’ words imply a
kind of authorization to act at difficult times, and with daring. These remarks
seem to reflect a sublime consciousness of the obligation imposed upon a
leader to reach decisions and to hope that his actions are also favorable and
acceptable.
A similar consciousness of the implications of their halakhic activity is
found among the sages. In the last days of the Second Temple, R. Hanina
Segan ha‫־‬Kohanim explains:
A commandment [i.e., Lev. 19:18: “You shall love your neighbor as your-
self — I am the Lord”] upon which the entire world depends, was uttered
with an oath at Mount Sinai. If you hate your neighbor whose deeds are
evil, like your deeds, “I am the Lord” — faithful to punish that same per-
son. But if you love your neighbor whose deeds are proper, like your
deeds, “I am the Lord” — faithful to have mercy on you19 and loving
human beings. (Avot de‫־‬Rabbi Nathan, Version B, ch. 26)

18. See note 2.

19. In Version A, ch. 16: “Does it not say, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself — I
am the Lord’ [Lev. 19:18]? What is the reason? For I have created him, and if he does
the deeds of your people, you love him. And if not, you do not love him. R. Simeon
b. Eleazar said: ‘This thing was said with a great oath, “You shall love your neighbor
as yourself — I am the Lord,” who created him. If you love him, I am faithful to re-
ward you a goodly reward, and if not, I am [as] a judge to punish.’”
In this version, the central message found in the words of R. Hanina Segan ha-
Kohanim is missing. A person is dependent upon what is decided in heaven, receiv-
ing a corresponding reward, while in the words of Hanina Segan ha-Kohanim the
initiative is entirely in the hands of the human individual whose decision is awaited

Immanuel 24/25 • 1990 107

 In this rabbi’s opinion, God’s attitude toward the deeds of human beings —
or in other words the reward or punishment that He metes out — is dictated,
so to speak, by the considerations of Israel. Therefore, the very existence of the
world depends upon human ways of thinking and the ability of society to de-
termine whether to love or hate those who surround it. In the verse, “You shall
love your neighbor as yourself — I am the Lord,” R. Hanina Segan ha-
Kohanim sees fundamental guidelines for how society is to weigh its response,
and tells us how significant and fateful this reaction is for the life of the entire
world — in heaven itself they await the human reaction. This is also the mean-
ing of the above-mentioned sermon concerning Honi ha-Me’aggel (bTa’anit
23a).20
It seems to me that this is likewise how we are to understand God’s response
to the incident of “the oven of Akhnai” (bBava Metzia 59a-b), which took
place during the generation of Yavneh. R. Eliezer tried to legitimize the oven
by performing miracles and even by getting confirmation through a heavenly
voice. But the sages retorted that even such a confirmation is to be disqualified
in halakhic arguments, since God Himself told Moses that the Torah “is not in
heaven” (Deut 30:12). The admission of God at the end of the discussion —
“My children have defeated me” — reflects this idea: the valid ruling of the
Halakhah can find its definition only within the rabbinic house of study. The
ruling that emerges from the discussion and decision of the majority of
authoritative rabbis on earth is what also obligates the heavenly court, such
that God Himself accepts whatever is “bound” and “loosed” by the authorized
human court.
In a similar spirit, Rabbi Judah stated:
From whence do you know that God said to Moses: “I say to you a thing,
and you answer me and I agree with you, so that Israel may say, ‘Great is
Moses that God agreed with him?” As is said, “that they may also believe
in you forever” [Ex. 19:91•21 (Mekhilta, sec. 43, Horowitz-Rabin ed., p. 210)
For R. Judah, Moses’ responsibility as a leader of Israel obliged him on
occasion even to contradict or oppose the words of God himself, such as when
God proposed to destroy Israel after the incident of the Golden Calf (Ex. 32:9-
14). The greatness of Moses, and with him that of every other sage, lies in their
ability to take this initiative and to decide on earth and in heaven. This is also
precisely the obligation that Jesus, the teacher, placed upon his first and clos-
est disciple, in the spirit of “Fear not, for God will be with you.”

Immanuel 24/25

in heaven. The reward is then the divine confirmation of and support for that
decision.
20. See note 14.
21. Further on, Rabbi Judah the Prince disagrees with this sermon of R. Judah. At the
same time, it would seem that there are not a few partners among the sages who
share the feeling of high self-regard regarding their activity in the framework of
halakhic and social action.

108 Immanuel 24/25 • 1990