Dirty Dozen - Mark 3:13-19

13 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14 He appointed twelve[a] that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons. 16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3:13-19 NIV)
a. Some manuscripts twelve—designating them apostles— 

This passage gives the story of Jesus making a special inner group of twelve.  The Arabic version adds him giving the twelve the title Apostles which scholars believe was a later addition taken from Luke 6:13.  The title "Apostle" comes from the Greek word, ἀποστόλους (apostolous), which refers to a delegate taking the place of the person sending them.  As an adjective it describes someone as having been dispatched or set forth.  Although the giving of this title was probably not part of the original writing of the community of Mark it does encapsulate the purpose of the group as set out in the text, delegates who would spread Jesus' message with his authority

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/3-14.htm

So, what was the message that these twelve had been selected to learn more closely and be sent out to preach with Jesus' authority?  This is a good point at which to review what the writers of the Gospel of Mark have portrayed as the message of Jesus' so far.  As we have observed in our study of the Gospel to this point, Jesus is given as starting his ministry preaching a continuation of the message of John the Baptist, telling the people to "repent", change their thinking and direction in terms of social justice; fairness, sharing with others, and caring for the disadvantaged.  As the Gospel progresses the message includes radical inclusion based on a vision of a primarily loving and compassionate God where all are welcome and equal participants in the people of God and no one is excluded or sanctioned.  We saw this in the stories of Jesus' acceptance and elevation of the marginalized and the "impure", the leper, the cripple, the tax collector.

The other aspect of Jesus' message as presented by the community of Mark that we have been exploring in a number of the latest posts is an elevation of principle and compassion over legalism.  Strict conformity to the law as duty is made less important than imitation of the character of God in terms of compassion and mercy, and in the consequence of one's actions in terms of the good or harm that it does to others.

These teachings are an important message to the writer/s of Mark.  It is the primary message of the Gospel and one they felt important enough that they have Jesus pick twelve special followers who would, "be with him", so that they could learn and live this message to the point that they could preach it as his proxy. Note that this teaching has no mention of an afterlife, Jesus death, or a reward system that excludes those not ascribing to the correct dogma in the next life.

Many denominations and Christian movements have dismissed the centrality and primacy of this teaching in favour of a theology centred on Jesus death and an afterlife.  It constantly amazes me that a subject that the Gospel writers have him discuss so briefly (and to this point not at all) is given primacy over teachings that are continually repeated.  This is particularly puzzling among those who literalize Jesus as God in human form.  How can what is supposed to be the best record of what God had to say while among us in the flesh less important than a theology built after his death based on a minor part of his teaching?  

Making substitutionary atonement the primary purpose of Jesus dismisses the importance of the message and teaching of Jesus given by the Gospel communities and implies that Jesus time on earth was just a filler until his death and what he had to say and what he did are not of central importance.  Jesus' death is not the lesson of the Gospel stories.  Jesus' death and resurrection is the ultimate metaphorical validation of Jesus teaching and actions.  It was also a literary device in order to frame the teachings of Jesus as an extension and the culmination of the Hebrew Scriptural tradition.  It was a way to validate a different approach at odds with the Temple sacrifice and purity law system of the time.  The purpose of framing the story of Jesus death and resurrection in sacrificial terms was to legitimize and justify a teaching that sought to do away with the old wine skin and garment of the Law and the sacrificial atonement system not to further entrench it in a different format.   It was the teaching that was the point, not the metaphorized history that sought to legitimize it.

With that rant finished, I would like to leave you with a funny meme I found while looking for pictures relevant to this passage.