Jesus’ Disciples: A teenage posse?
How old were the disciples? In their teens? Old men with grey beards and walking staffs?
The theory of a young age of the disciples
I first heard the theory from Ray Vander Laan, one of my favorite Bible History teachers; that the twelve disciples were all under the age of 20 with the exception of Peter. Honestly, I felt a huge burden lift from my brain. I can’t tell you how often I’ve struggled with how stupid and immature I’ve believed those incorrigible twelve to be! To age them in adolescence increases their reputation, at least in my book, by leaps and bounds.
So, right off the bat, I like the idea. But, is it biblical?
The pros for a young age
I’ve listed some of the arguments Ray Vander Laan makes to support his theory as detailed on the discussion board on his website, Follow the Rabbi.
The temple tax
In Exodus 30:14-15, Jewish law states that every male over the age of 20 is to pay a half-shekel as census offering when they visit the temple of God. In Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus instructs Peter to “fish up” this tax. Peter finds a shekel in the mouth of the fish he catches; enough to pay the tax for two men, himself and Jesus. You could conclude that the others were underage and did not need to pay.
The use of the term “little ones”
In Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, and John 13:33, Jesus calls his disciples little children; a bit insulting if they were adults.
They were unmarried
We learn that Peter had a wife when Jesus healed his mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15). In those ancient times, a Jewish man receives a wife after the age of 18. Again, no other disciples’ wives are mentioned. You could deduce then, that they were unmarried, hence under the age of 18.
The education system of Israel at the time of Jesus
In Avot 5 (from the Mishnah: rabbinical commentary that was added to the Old Testament), we learn of the ancient Jewish education traditions: scripture study begins at age 5; Mishnah study at 10; Torah obligations at 13; continued rabbinical study at 15 if chosen to be tutored by a formal teacher or apprenticed to a trade; marriage at 18; formal teaching at 30.
Jewish children began intensive study at young ages, but education for most concluded by age 15. For those bright (or wealthy) enough, higher education consisted of studying under a local rabbi, and if they were distinguished, they could begin teaching at the age of 30. If they didn’t find a rabbi that accepted them as a student (much like a college entrance application), then they entered the workforce by their mid teens. The disciples, already working at their trades, must have been rejected for formal education by other rabbis when Jesus hand-picked them for further education as his disciples. In light of this, a younger age is more probable than older. A youth would be in the mindset of continuing his education. A man over 30 leaving his trade to follow a rabbi would be counter-cultural; not impossible (Jesus was definitely counter-cultural), but more likely they were younger than older.
The zeal and folly of youth
The behavior of the disciples, as detailed in the gospels, fits well with the zealous nature and foolishness of adolescence. Doesn’t it make more sense that teenagers were arguing over who would be greatest in Jesus’ reign than grown men? Picture a gang of teens instead of work-hardened men in the boat when the storm hit, fear-stricken and waking up Jesus for help. The forgetful and distracted nature of youth helps me understand how they could hear Jesus say he would die and come back to life, yet act as they did when these things happened. They were kids! They hadn’t been paying attention in class. Yet, they were quick to admit their failures, and showed they had limitlessness amount of energy in storming the country with the good news of Messiah. When I age them under twenty, I better understand Jesus’ patience with them, his low expectations of their behavior, and his teaching style. To me, who has struggled to not judge the stupidity of the actions of the “grown men” disciples, it just makes sense.
The cons for a young age
As with any teacher or author who goes on record, there are critics. Chuck May details his objections to Vander Laan’s Jewish premises in his paper, How Jewish do you have to be to understand the Bible? I don’t agree with his objections, but I thought his points against the young age of the disciples worthy of consideration.
Matthew was a tax collector.
The Bible doesn’t say Matthew was apprenticed to be a tax collector, or that his father was a tax collector, but that Matthew himself was a Roman appointed tax agent. Would the Romans have trusted a teenager with this job? I frankly don’t know, so I can’t say either way. But it may be a valid point.
Jesus gave his mother to John.
At the cross, Jesus gives the care of his mother to John. At this point, if you take the young age view, John could have been as young as 13. Would Jesus have trusted a little boy to this task? You could argue, Jesus knew John would outlive all the others so he was the most reliable! Jesus was also close to John and may have recognized he could handle this solemn responsibility. I think of the young pioneers in the early settling of the west who were entrusted to care for the family at very young ages. Age may not have mattered to Jesus, but its worth considering.
Does it really matter?
Nah. Its impossible to say one way or the other, and since the Bible doesn’t make a big deal of it, neither will I. I like the idea of a younger age for the disciples, because it appeals to my common sense. But, it doesn’t harm the gospel at all to age them traditionally in their twenties and thirties. So take your pick!
Stumble It!
Jaimie said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Younger. Ha.
Don Eichhorn said,
November 16, 2008 at 5:14 am
Speculation is great, but I would caution teachers to present thier speculation as such and not as fact…as I have heard.
A couple other thoughts on the topic…since it is factual that Peter was old enough to have his own home, family, and business, how likely is it that his brother Andrew was a “young school boy”? Also, as stated above, Matthew was a tax collector, but in addition to that Jesus spent time at “Matthew’s house” (Matthew 9:10). And finally, James and John are described as “Simon’s partners” (Luke 5:10). Again, how likely is it that Peter would be in business with young high schoolers? I feel it is more likely that at least several Disciples were more mature than adolesence. Food for thought, thank you for yours.
Rob said,
June 26, 2009 at 9:58 am
Still, James and John were working with their father Zebedee. Young Jewish men were to ply their trade (learn the family business) if they were not chosen to follow a Rabbi. These two young men were still working with dad, giving credence to the possibility that they were still too young to be off on their own.
Dan Liebe said,
October 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Just a thought about the “young high-schooler” comment. Remember, Jewish boys were not longer boys after age 13 but young men. There was no “high-school” and during their ages of 16-18 they were young men in their society and not just adolescents. Therefore it is very likely that several of them could have been in that age bracket.
Chuck said,
October 7, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Good comments Dan. Often we attempt to read the NT through the lens of our 21st century westernized culture. It appears that the maturing process began much earlier in the first century.
kbonikowsky said,
November 16, 2008 at 8:49 am
Good arguments. Thanks.
Terry Guinn said,
March 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If you want more food for thought Saul (paul) was a young man when blinded on his way to demascus. He had the zealous nature of a teen to get something done.
Sam said,
May 28, 2009 at 8:55 am
I like to think of the disciples as young men as well, it just makes more sense as the author says. As we grow older it seems that we get rooted in what life we have established, for someone to uproot it seems that a younger (more impulsive) person is more plausible. As it is not documented in the word I won’t say I know, but in my mind that 16-25 age range is what I see.
Jeremy Koenig said,
June 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I believe this study is very important because it effects the way Christians and churches go about living out the great commission. If it is true that the disciples were “teenagers” (which I believe they were) then the model Jesus taught to live out the great commission is high school evangelism and discipleship. If we then marry this reality with an understanding of the development of the human brain in adolescence – as kids search for identity in the world and answers to the fundamental questions in life – we find that the front of the world wide spiritual battle is with kids. This goes right along with the statistic that 95% of people who follow Christ in their lifetime make a commitment to Jesus before the age of 19.
In working in youth evangelism and discipleship for the past 10 years I can testify that kids of all backgrounds deeply desire for adults to get involved in their lives, love and support them, and point them to answers (Christ!). In my experience, our problem as a church is that we are so wrapped up in different models of “doing church” that we fail to recognize how Christ modeled our mission.
Chuck Coty said,
September 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Great stuff! I think the young age of the fearless (sometimes fearful) crew is right on target. You offered two objections to the young age theory, one of which was Jesus giving his mother to John. Let me ask you a wild and crazy question. Where does it say that Jesus gave His mother to “John”? Without presupposition, and using only the Scriptures, I’d like to see a proof that John was in fact the disciple whom Jesus Loved. I have some questions you might find interesting and rather thought provoking.
There is only one man named in the Bible who is specifically said to be loved by Jesus. Is it John? Is there anything we know about John that would have caused the rumor to spread that he wasn’t going to die? When the Scripture tells us that ALL the disciples fled in fear, what about John gives us the belief that he the only disciple bold enough to stand unfazed at the foot of the cross?
What motivation would there have been for John to conceal his identity? Why do we believe John would have been reclining at the table lying next to Jesus? What about John do we know that leads us to believe that he was the first to believe Christ had been raised from the dead? Is there any indication that John was personally known by the High Priest? Does it make sense that Jesus would have entrusted his mother to a youngster (some say he may have been as young as 10 to 12) who lived well over a 100 miles north of Jerusalem? Is John ever referenced in the Gospel which bears his name? Were there only 12 at the last supper?
I believe I can prove that John was NOT the DWJL. I also believe the evidence is so profound and overwhelming for another, that it will make your faith in the Scriptures rise to a new level.
Just so you can be certain where I’m coming from, I believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of the Living God. So I am in no way assaulting the integrity of God’s Word by questioning 4th Gospel authorship. Tradition is in fact the ONLY case most use to “prove” that John was/is the DWJL, yet the internal evidence is devastatingly opposed to Johanine authorship.
Why do we expect John to be so bold that he was the only one willing to ask Jesus who it was who would betray him? Peter was even afraid. Do we find anyone reclining at the table with Jesus in any scenes other than the Last Supper?
Lastly, one would think that the 3 most amazing and pivotal days in John’s life, where we know he was an eyewitness: The Transfiguration; the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the Garden of Gethsemane; would have been included in his own Gospel…yet even though all of these events are included in each of the synoptics, not one is mentioned in his own account? Isn’t that strange? John chose not to write about the most significant events in his life?
So significant have we made John, yet Matthew always lists John as the brother of James. Not one scene where we know John was present in the 3 Gospels, is included in his Gospel account. Not one. And why is it that the Gospel of John is so different from the other 3 if in fact they were all from Galilee? The style is appreciably different.
Sorry for barging in here and adding these things to the discussion. I just thought the 4th Gospel authorship was pertinent to the article at hand since I do not believe Jesus handed His mother over to a youngster who lived more than 100 miles due north.
When I studied this subject, there were three ancillary and profound benefits.
1. I learned to pay close attention to Scriptural detail i.e. the fact the “face cloth” is only mentioned in the 4th Gospel etc.
2. The Scriptures miraculous and divine nature came to the fore
3. I realized that tradition (though often valuable) has the capacity to deceive
If anyone has further interest in pursuing this study, let me know and I’d be glad to offer assistance. I must tell you that I was thoroughly shocked at the conclusions and rather dismayed at my own inability to “see” clearly for 35 years in the Lord. Better late than never! =)
Thanks for the wonderful info on the age of the disciples. Your arguments are excellent. Wow! I will refer others to your above lesson.
Blessings,
Chuck <
Tiffany said,
September 18, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I somehow wandered across this site and felt I had to add the fact that “adolescence” did not exist in antiquity. The concept of a period between puberty and adulthood is a fairly new one, dating back to 1904 when Stanley Hall wrote the book, Adolescence.
In Jesus’ day there were children and adults. When you became old enough to work, you were considered an adult. I think we need to be careful not to impose our 21st century lens upon the text…
By the way, I think “the disciple that Jesus loved” was Lazarus
Love the discussion,
Tiffany
Chuck said,
September 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Tiffany,
Good comments. We are in total agreement regarding reading our 21st century mindset into Scripture. I see this problem constantly. Very often, culture and “audience relevance” are never considered. What’s interesting Tiffany, is that Ray Vander Laan’s website, “Follow the Rabbi”, is dedicated to interpreting Scripture through the eyes of first century Judaism. It is this backdrop that causes Vander Laan to argue for the disciple’s young age.
Many of the reasons for his assertion of the disciple’s youth have to do with the culture of the Jews in the first century. Much more than in our culture, everything was accelerated. The girls married when they were in their early teens and the men were often married around 18. Yet we know of only one disciple who was married.
And Tiffany, did you read Matthew 17:24-27. If any of the disciples were older than 20, then why did Jesus pay the temple tax for only Peter and himself?
Jesus said, “Take that [the coin] and give it to them for you and Me.”
I think the preponderance of the evidence is weighted rather heavily for their very young ages.
BTW, Tiffany, what makes you think the DWJL was Larzarus, considering 2,000 years of tradition says otherwise?
Tiffany said,
September 20, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Actually, I agree with you on the disciples ages! I’m sorry you thought we were in disagreement. I DO think they were young. While the male disciples were considered “men” back then, I think WE would consider them “adolescents” today. I just don’t think we should call them adolescents because it carries with it a connotation that did not exist back then, therefore needlessly skewing our interpretation.
About the Lazarus thing….if we start with the last chapter of John and work backwards I think there are some suggestions (no hard evidence) that the disciple Jesus loved was Lazarus. John 21: There is a reason for the rumor that the beloved disciple might not die. He had already been raised from the dead once! Now, go to the empty tomb. What’s the difference between Peter and the beloved disciple? The beloved disciple believes. Why? Because perhaps he too had been raised from the dead. He knew first hand that it could happen. In 19:25-27 we are told that the beloved disciple has a household and that Jesus trusted him enough to take care of Mary. We know that Lazarus had a home and that he would have been old enough and close enough to Jesus to fulfill this responsibility (perhaps more so than a much younger John). In 13:23-26 the beloved disciple is reclining on Jesus. Who knew him well? Whose house did Jesus stay at often? Lazarus’. And most convincingly, in John 11:1-3, Jesus is told “Him whom you love is sick,” referring to Lazarus. This is the only phrasing found in the gospel that is similar to “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
Of course I did not come up with all of this stuff. More and more scholars today are leaning toward the idea that the DWJL was Lazarus. Check out some journal articles about it. It’s interesting stuff! I am no scholar and so I’m sure they will explain these ideas better than me.
Tiffany said,
September 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Haha! I just reread your first post. You believe its Lazarus too, don’t you?
Chuck said,
September 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Tiffany,
I thought your comments were insightful and rather unusual. How many people on the face of this earth believe the 4th Gospel’s writer was not John? You are probably one out of every 100,000 believers.
Tiffany, to be quite honest, when I first began investigating 4th Gospel authorship I was rather uncomfortable. Since emblazoned across the top it read, “The Gospel According to John”. So I was a little concerned that I was questioning the inspiration of Scripture. I read a booklet written by Jim Phillips, “The Disciple Jesus Loved” and immediately the question of inspiration was dispelled. Since the author never names himself, but only used the title, “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved”, I realize that there was nothing wrong with making certain that the Apostle John was indeed the author.
I think the best way to approach 4th Gospel authorship is to first determine if John could be the author, using Scripture alone. Once we are confronted with unequivocal evidence that John could not have been the author (there are 3 key passages), then the question of who did, is fair game. I believe, had the 4th Gospel been entitled, “The Gospel According to Lazarus”, no one would have ever questioned authorship.
The evidence for Lazarian authorship fits like a face cloth.
But why does this matter anyway? Does the author change the content? No, absolutely not, but many things don’t make sense if we believe John is author.
I think truth is important no matter the consequences. Many liberal critiques of the Bible are assailing the Bible and we give them the rope to hang us. We lose credibility when we insist on something that can be disproved. Another really important reason is that, once we realize how tradition can and does err, we are free to question tradition in other areas.
This 4th Gospel study, much like this article arguing for the young age of disciples, exalts the integrity of the Scriptures. That’s why I share these things with many folks.
If anyone who reads this would like more info I’d be glad to share it.
Thanks again Tiffany. Have a wonderful week. Thanks also to the writer of this blog article.
Blessings,
Chuck
Chuck said,
September 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Incidentally, the possibility exists that John did in fact write the 4th Gospel. Just not the Apostle John. There’s extra-Biblical evidence to support the fact that John Eleazar (another name for Lazarus) is the author.
Also, there was an “Elder John” who could have been the writer, using Lazarus’ eyewitness testimony (much the same as Peter’s part in the Gospel of Mark). We have to remember that at that time there were many Johns and many of them had quite a few names. Mark was even called “John Mark”. (Acts 15:37)
Once I realized how flimsy the historical “proof” of Johanine authorship was, I had no problem pursuing an alternative.
I surely didn’t mean to hijack this blog article. Sorry! I just thought the two arguments were similar in terms of attacking tradition.
Blessings,
Chuck
kbonikowsky said,
September 21, 2009 at 7:38 am
Cool stuff, thanks for hijacking.
Chuck Coty said,
September 21, 2009 at 8:34 am
I hope your reference to “hijacking” was tongue in cheek. =) If it was a slightly backhanded remark, let me again apologize. I don’t want to deter from the very good initial post. Thanks again. Blessings! <
kbonikowsky said,
September 21, 2009 at 9:23 am
I meant it!
No tongue in cheek.
Chuck Coty said,
September 21, 2009 at 9:26 am
Okay thanks! Blessings, Chuck
Tiffany said,
September 22, 2009 at 8:40 pm
You are very careful and thorough, Chuck. I believe all readers who pass by this site will appreciate that very much and will be more open to listen to your thoughts. You have reminded me not to simply throw around ideas, lest I offend someone. Your explanations and offers to hold sidebar conversations are welcoming to all people, wherever we are theologically. Thank you for that. You have taught me something.
Chuck said,
September 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Wow, Tiffany, thanks a bunch. You are far too kind but I appreciate and value every word.
So many folks shy away from theological matters, especially those issues that have traditionally been controversial. To me this is kind of sad because our foundational bedrock beliefs are built upon sound theology. When the storms come, and they will, without firm footing we may begin to sink in the quicksand of doubt and fear.
The church I attend has a rather typical cautious attitude when it comes to doctrine. They don’t want to offend anyone so much so that sometimes they don’t say anything of substance.
I think unity should always be pursued but never at the cost of truth. However, truth without love is of little value because it will never penetrate our defense mechanisms when we feel threatened. It’s no wonder that the methods of argumentation/intimidation so often used, does nothing but send the more timid and humble souls searching for cover.
Nothing worse than getting beaten up by a theological bully. And sometimes Christians can be as mean as rattle snakes. Unfortunately I’ve not always been a model of kindness either. Often times our ideas become so inculcated into who we are, that when our theology or beliefs are attacked we have a tendency to react harshly.
Tiffany, what I have learned the hard way is that everyone has a paradigm…even those who say they don’t. And when you press the right buttons, all of a sudden those who appeared to be rather mild-mannered seem to come to life…and it’s not always a pretty sight
4th Gospel authorship is one such issue. Eschatology is another and so is free grace vs. lordship salvation.
What I hope is that the Church continues to mature. We need to become adept at sharpening iron without creating divisions. Now I realize that’s a tall order, but if the Gospel means anything we of all people, who are endowed with the Spirit of God, ought to be the most apt at pulling that off.
Well, I’ve done enough babbling. Thanks again for the enjoyable conversation. I’m still curious what prompted your change of mind re the 4th Gospel authorship?
I’ve heard all the craziness about Mary Mag being the author and knew that was bogus, but for some reason John never set well with me. However, no alternatives seemed credible…so I was kind of stalemated.
Now when I read John 20 and I picture Lazarus beating Peter to the tomb, I am spell bound and awed by what comes next. Lazarus doesn’t go in even though he arrives first. You can see the wheels turning in his mind as the Spirit of God is working through his own death experience. So while all the disciples were huddled in a room, still totally perplexed and dismayed at the loss of their master, Lazarus had already believed. All he needed was to see the face cloth set off by itself, just like the one he had worn.
Tiffany, let me ask you what was a perplexing question for me. Have you ever wondered why in the following verse the author states that they didn’t understand that Jesus must rise from the dead? What did Lazarus belief if it wasn’t Jesus’ return to life?
8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. John 20:8-9 (ESV)
I think I have a viable answer but this verse initially caused some confusion. I ran down every derivative of “believe” and found that it meant exactly as I anticipated. It always is a positive affirmation. In other words it doesn’t state the obvious. You wouldn’t say, “I believe I have 10 fingers” unless of course you’d been near a saw blade recently.
Some have argued that all the DWJL believed was that Jesus’ body was no longer there. In other words it could have been stolen. This really doesn’t fit the way believe is used. Belief is akin to faith. “I believe Jesus’ body is no longer there” does not appear to be a fair characterization of “believe”.
At any rate, since you are a kindred spirit, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
I’ve got to fly to Indie tomorrow and be out of pocket for a few days. I’ll check my email occasionally. Have a super rest of the week.
Blessings,
Chuck