Luke 10

[junostarlighter]

Hey,

I have a question on Luke 10. Why does Jesus pick 72 others? Weren’t the 12 enough? Does that mean apostolic authority went to the other 72 as well?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Apparently some manuscripts have seventy instead of seventy-two. It probably has something to do with the seventy elders of Israel upon whom the Lord bestowed some of Moses’ prophetic spirit so that they might share the burden of the people with him. (Numbers 11:10-30) This would be a way of showing that Jesus is like a new Moses.

 

[Rebecca_New]

The apostles were chosen to be witnesses to the Truth. The 70 or 72 men were chosen, but not as original witnesses. We are all chosen to spread The Word. The Franciscians, started by St. Francis of Assissi, traveled in pairs and took a vow of poverty. St. Anthony of Padua was a Priest and later became a Franciscian. What great saints were born from this passage!!

 

[Eileen_T]

Just think, it took just 12 priests/bishops to change the world.
Isn’t that awesome?

The 70/72 were added extras. . . whatever they were, deacons, eventually priests, they were not apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Let’s see,

Moses chose 12 princes to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

Jesus chose 12 Apostles to judge the 12 tribes of the New Israel.

Moses was told in Number 11:16, “Assemble for me seventy of the elders of Israel, men you know for true elders and authorities among the people”. Then in verse 25, the Lord, “Taking some of the spirit that was on Moses, he bestowed it on the seventy elders; and as the spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied”.

Jesus in Luke 10:1, “After this the Lord appointed seventy (-two) others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit… and say to them, 'The kingdom of God is at hand for you.’”

It seems some manuscripts said 70 and some say 72 in Luke.

Notworthy

P.S. For more on the similarities between Moses and Jesus, Catholic Answers Radio Archives has a file by Scott Hahn “Jesus, Moses, and the Prophets” where he goes on for about five minutes detailing all the parallels. It’s incredible.

For instance, Moses’ first sign to Pharaoh to release his people was he turned the water into blood. Jesus’ first sign was to turn the water into wine. Moses last sign, before the freeing of Israel from slavery, was the Passover. Jesus last sign, in order to free us from slavery, was as the Passover Sacrifice.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[TOME]

This thread brings up some interesting questions. I would like to add a few things and I will be basing my thoughts on the often maglined “Historical Criticism” and a few other suggestions from modern biblical scholarship. There are most like some who will disagree with me but I still find it interesting and will share them in my post.

One of the goals of modern scriptural research is an attemp to come to know something of the Historical Jesus. A couple of things I have read is how Jesus was very much a Jew of his time, a man steeped in his culture and very aware of his heritage as a Jew.

Some scholars have written how it seems that in many of His actions, Jesus was consciously forming paralles with events found in His Scriptures (that is the OT - there wasn’t a NT yet was there?).

In many of His action His contemporaries would understand completely there symbolic meaning. So we have Jesus choosing the 12 Apostles, symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel. His entry into Jerusalem on “Palm Sunday” was steeped in the symbolism presented by the prophets of a messiah come to usher in a period of peace. And here we find another example where Jesus may have on purpose choosen a group numbering 70/72 that any Jew of His time and place would understand its significance.

I wrote above that I find hypothesis like this interesting and can be helpfull understood in its proper context. Too often we forget that Jesus was fully human. Here we may find a very human Jesus using the signs and religious understanding of his times and culture to get more effectively proclaim His message of the Father’s Kingdom being present here and now.

And it makes sense when we consider Jesus would use images and events in His parables that everyone would understand and many perhaps experienced in their everyday life. I cannot help of thinking of the couple of cures He performed and in doing the mircle he actually used His own salvia, either directly or to make mud. From modern research we know at the time of Jesus, Jews believed that saliva actually had curative powers.

So my point being, we know from the scriptures Jesus would knowingly use signs, symbols and events common to all in order to enhance His message and to make this message more understandable for all. So I can see Jesus also knowingly choosing from his followers special groups to extent His ministry and using numbers whose symbolism was familiar and understood by all around.

An extra note, in one of the post I read about Jesus’ first mircle of changing water into wine. I would like to add this for your consideration. Wine, in Old Testament times and liturature was almost universally understood as a symbol of “New Life”. And for me this brings out a deeper meaning of the symbol of the miracle.That is by changing the water into wine we find Jesus proclaiming that a “New Life” was now present amoung them and this new wine which, as the steward attested to was the choice wine (Life) and think about how much wine Jesus created? So we have in this miracle the symbols of a “New Life” now present and this New Life is the choice life and is found in great abundance.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Does that mean apostolic authority went to the other 72 as well?

I would like to expand on this question. I read online that Ananias of Damascus is traditionally listed as one of the seventy-two]" disciples from Luke 10 or even the first Bishop of Damascus.

I have previously understood that Bishops were those upon whom the apostles layed hands.

Ananias did not seem to be one of those, but rather commissioned by Christ if he was one of the seventy-two. As well, In Acts 9:10-17 we see Ananias laying his hands on Paul (then Saul) in an imposition of the Spirit. And we know Paul to be St. Paul the APOSTLE.

Could someone respond to this with regard to Apostolic Succession? It would seem the answer to junostarlighter’s question of whether these 72 had apostolic authority would be: yes.