And then, there were Three:

[Dennis1209]

Matthew 18:16 (KJV) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Many know Biblical numbers hold significance and serve a purpose, from the exact detailed measurements of the Temple-Tabernacle to the number of the Beast and everything in between.

We know the history; Jesus chose twelve disciples. We know the episodes of them vying to be the greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ).

 We also see that Jesus selected three for His inner circle: Peter, James, and John. These three disciples, out of the twelve, were privileged to witness some of the Bible's most historic and important events. In contrast, the remaining disciples were left alone. This is apparent and intentional, and for a reason, I cannot put my finger on it.

By selection, could this have answered the squabbling of who would be positionally the greatest in the kingdom? How do we suppose the omitted disciples felt, being left behind, not allowed to witness Jesus' transfiguration, and raising of the dead?

What are your thoughts on why Jesus selected only three of the twelve and why Jesus selected Peter, James, and John alone?

[AnOrangeCat]

Awareness of their ability and potential is my feeling on the matter, though admittedly it's a simplistic explanation. You raise an interesting point about the Bible often referring to two or three witnesses, though.

Looking at Acts and what we know of the early church Peter was used heavily by God, and I suspect it was in because we see multiple significant failures on his part in the Bible. We see the guy who denied Christ to save his own skin, the guy who doubted and sank into the water despite all he saw, as one of the main figures at the forefront of the early Christian church.

We know Jesus and John were especially close. The Bible outright says it, but He also thought highly enough of John to entrust Mary to him. Jesus spoke of those who were faithful with little things also being faithful with little things. Counting on someone to take care of your mother isn't a little thing but I think the same principle still applies. Jesus saw a degree of faithfulness and reliability in John that must have been exceptional.

James is a little more vague. The Bible doesn't tell us much about him, but from what little we do see I get the impression of someone who was in tune with Jesus. As brief as it is when I go through James I see so much and think "Yeah, I could see Jesus saying/doing that." The statement "Faith without works is dead" is probably the most famous idea present in James, but I find that there's so much more in it that points back to the words and ministry of Jesus.

For example, any of this sound familiar? "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12-13)

[Michael37]

13 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Matthew 18:16 (KJV) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Many know Biblical numbers hold significance and serve a purpose, from the exact detailed measurements of the Temple-Tabernacle to the number of the Beast and everything in between.

We know the history; Jesus chose twelve disciples. We know the episodes of them vying to be the greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ).

 We also see that Jesus selected three for His inner circle: Peter, James, and John. These three disciples, out of the twelve, were privileged to witness some of the Bible's most historic and important events. In contrast, the remaining disciples were left alone. This is apparent and intentional, and for a reason, I cannot put my finger on it.

By selection, could this have answered the squabbling of who would be positionally the greatest in the kingdom? How do we suppose the omitted disciples felt, being left behind, not allowed to witness Jesus' transfiguration, and raising of the dead?

What are your thoughts on why Jesus selected only three of the twelve and why Jesus selected Peter, James, and John alone?

In Matthew 17:9 the disciples are told not to mention "the vision". Later John had a lengthy series of visions he was told to write down. It's interesting to follow the narratives looking at the way God instructs and who He instructs to achieve everything.

[Dennis1209]

On 1/19/2025 at 9:52 AM, AnOrangeCat said:

Awareness of their ability and potential is my feeling on the matter, though admittedly it's a simplistic explanation. You raise an interesting point about the Bible often referring to two or three witnesses, though.

Looking at Acts and what we know of the early church Peter was used heavily by God, and I suspect it was in because we see multiple significant failures on his part in the Bible. We see the guy who denied Christ to save his own skin, the guy who doubted and sank into the water despite all he saw, as one of the main figures at the forefront of the early Christian church.

We know Jesus and John were especially close. The Bible outright says it, but He also thought highly enough of John to entrust Mary to him. Jesus spoke of those who were faithful with little things also being faithful with little things. Counting on someone to take care of your mother isn't a little thing but I think the same principle still applies. Jesus saw a degree of faithfulness and reliability in John that must have been exceptional.

James is a little more vague. The Bible doesn't tell us much about him, but from what little we do see I get the impression of someone who was in tune with Jesus. As brief as it is when I go through James I see so much and think "Yeah, I could see Jesus saying/doing that." The statement "Faith without works is dead" is probably the most famous idea present in James, but I find that there's so much more in it that points back to the words and ministry of Jesus.

For example, any of this sound familiar? "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12-13)

I had the same thoughts. I am not the sharpest tool in the woodshed. For a long time, I had difficulty distinguishing who of the three James in the NT, with their roles and relationships. Jesus called two disciples with two different parents, James the Less and the Greater, probably referring to their stature. The third of Mary and Joseph, half-brother to Jesus, James (the Just), penned the book of the same name.  

By all Biblical accounts, Jesus grew up in a typical and normal Jewish household. Children's and adolescents' perceptions have not changed with time and culture. What would Jesus' siblings have thought of Him growing up? A perfect child that never sinned, disobeyed, did no mischief, and was never disciplined. Did Mary and Joseph tell their other children any details? Interestingly, James, half-brother to Jesus, and His half-siblings did not believe in Jesus' ministry until His resurrection (John 7:2-5).

James and John (the beloved), the Sons of Thunder (Boanerges). What trust, honor, privilege, and blessing Jesus bestowed the care of His earthly mother to John the beloved. James, half-brother to Jesus, became leader of the Jerusalem Church and accomplished many great things in the Name of the Lord.

Not by coincidence, Peter is always listed as 1^st in the registries of the apostles. According to church history and Fox's Book of Martyrs, John was the only one to die naturally in old age. All the other apostles, including Paul, were brutally martyred for the Name of the Lord. It holds that Peter was not worthy to be crucified as Christ died, that Peter requested to be crucified upside down in his old age. The Lord shared with Peter what to expect, truly, truly:

John 21:18 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

The "some here" at Jesus' transfiguration were Peter, James, and John only (save Moses and Elijah), a powerful display of the kingdom of God they were privileged and chosen to witness. Two or three are the Biblical numbers for witnessing and establishing a thing.

Mark 9:1-2 (KJV) And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. ² And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

All the above is to say that you made a great observation of ability and potential, picked out of the twelve.

[AnOrangeCat]

59 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

I had the same thoughts. I am not the sharpest tool in the woodshed. For a long time, I had difficulty distinguishing who of the three James in the NT, with their roles and relationships

You're not alone there. I still experience that difficulty, which I think is partially because we hear relatively little of them compared to other Biblical figures of the NT. Of what we do hear even less really sticks out as a defining moment. There's nothing like Peter's denial or sinking, Judas turning traitor, or Thomas expressing his doubt. I'm tangenting a bit here but my suspicion is that aside from it not really being relevant to the intended message of that part of the Bible we're not given much information on account of what people would do with that information if they had it. Even in the time of Paul there were already denominations of sorts forming, centered around men rather than Christ. Even with what little the Bible says about angels we see people incorporating them into occult nonsense.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

By all Biblical accounts, Jesus grew up in a typical and normal Jewish household. Children's and adolescents' perceptions have not changed with time and culture. What would Jesus' siblings have thought of Him growing up? A perfect child that never sinned, disobeyed, did no mischief, and was never disciplined. Did Mary and Joseph tell their other children any details? Interestingly, James, half-brother to Jesus, and His half-siblings did not believe in Jesus' ministry until His resurrection (John 7:2-5).

That would be interesting to know. Based on the interaction between Jesus and Mary at the wedding where He turned water into wine I get the impression Jesus had a preference to keep things low key up until that point. Hard to say for sure. That and other mysteries and vague points in the Bible are something I personally look forward to learning in Heaven.

[Marilyn C]

On 1/19/2025 at 11:55 PM, Dennis1209 said:

Matthew 18:16 (KJV) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Many know Biblical numbers hold significance and serve a purpose, from the exact detailed measurements of the Temple-Tabernacle to the number of the Beast and everything in between.

We know the history; Jesus chose twelve disciples. We know the episodes of them vying to be the greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ).

 We also see that Jesus selected three for His inner circle: Peter, James, and John. These three disciples, out of the twelve, were privileged to witness some of the Bible's most historic and important events. In contrast, the remaining disciples were left alone. This is apparent and intentional, and for a reason, I cannot put my finger on it.

By selection, could this have answered the squabbling of who would be positionally the greatest in the kingdom? How do we suppose the omitted disciples felt, being left behind, not allowed to witness Jesus' transfiguration, and raising of the dead?

What are your thoughts on why Jesus selected only three of the twelve and why Jesus selected Peter, James, and John alone?

Hi Dennis,

My hubby said - potential.

I agree and believe that Jesus worked with the 3 in depth and then they would each work with 3 = 12. And so, on as we also work with a few at a time, in depth, and then they go and do the same.

[Dennis1209]

10 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Dennis,

My hubby said - potential.

I agree and believe that Jesus worked with the 3 in depth and then they would each work with 3 = 12. And so, on as we also work with a few at a time, in depth, and then they go and do the same.

Greetings Marilyn, how you be?

You and your hubby make an interesting point. The apostle who came late, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, said he was not worthy of the position because he persecuted the church and was not part of the twelve. An argument could be made: Jesus Himself tutored Paul in Arabia (Mt. Sini possibly) for three years. I do not see that Paul was mentored by any other apostle(s).

The potential is a good description to use. Of all twelve of the disciples, Paul was the only one to be distinguished (not a commoner) as highly educated in religion and Jewish Law, with initials after his name studying under Gamaliel:

Acts 22:3 (KJV) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

As I mentioned, the apostle Peter is always listed first in any apostolic list; why, considering the three denials? As you say, possibly potential. I envision Peter as having some obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Mouth opening before the brain thinks, impulsively acting out before the gray matter engages.

Compulsively missing the chrome dome of the high priest’s servant and lending an ear. In a fierce storm (possibly produced by Satan), with eyes on Jesus, hopping out of the boat and walking on water (the gray matter engaged, taking his eyes off Jesus, faith, and trust). I can imagine the thoughts of the other disciples in the boat, being tossed around like a cork in the six-foot whitecaps. Peter, man iz you crazy or what? Get thee back into this boat pronto. That’s potential.

I will refrain from my thoughts, but Peter lost something, and Jesus restored it in John 21:15-17. I will say the exchange of the Greek word meanings for the various meanings of the root word love is interesting and telling.

John (the beloved) and his brother James (Boanerges – sons of thunder) wanted to call down lightning on those who rejected Jesus and them. That’s potential. James is also distinguished as the first apostle martyred and the only one Biblically recorded.

However, I cannot recall anywhere in scripture where Peter, James, or John worked with or personally mentored any of the other apostles by threes. They were set apart as an inner circle and special confidants, and witnesses. Unless when they assembled and gave their accounts of their journeys, receptions, or church business. Seventy apostles were sent out two by two into the world to share Christ. I assume the chosen twelve educated, trained, and equipped these seventy, Matthias being drawn by casting lots.

Thoughts?

[Marilyn C]

6 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Greetings Marilyn, how you be?

You and your hubby make an interesting point. The apostle who came late, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, said he was not worthy of the position because he persecuted the church and was not part of the twelve. An argument could be made: Jesus Himself tutored Paul in Arabia (Mt. Sini possibly) for three years. I do not see that Paul was mentored by any other apostle(s).

The potential is a good description to use. Of all twelve of the disciples, Paul was the only one to be distinguished (not a commoner) as highly educated in religion and Jewish Law, with initials after his name studying under Gamaliel:

Acts 22:3 (KJV) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

As I mentioned, the apostle Peter is always listed first in any apostolic list; why, considering the three denials? As you say, possibly potential. I envision Peter as having some obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Mouth opening before the brain thinks, impulsively acting out before the gray matter engages.

Compulsively missing the chrome dome of the high priest’s servant and lending an ear. In a fierce storm (possibly produced by Satan), with eyes on Jesus, hopping out of the boat and walking on water (the gray matter engaged, taking his eyes off Jesus, faith, and trust). I can imagine the thoughts of the other disciples in the boat, being tossed around like a cork in the six-foot whitecaps. Peter, man iz you crazy or what? Get thee back into this boat pronto. That’s potential.

I will refrain from my thoughts, but Peter lost something, and Jesus restored it in John 21:15-17. I will say the exchange of the Greek word meanings for the various meanings of the root word love is interesting and telling.

John (the beloved) and his brother James (Boanerges – sons of thunder) wanted to call down lightning on those who rejected Jesus and them. That’s potential. James is also distinguished as the first apostle martyred and the only one Biblically recorded.

However, I cannot recall anywhere in scripture where Peter, James, or John worked with or personally mentored any of the other apostles by threes. They were set apart as an inner circle and special confidants, and witnesses. Unless when they assembled and gave their accounts of their journeys, receptions, or church business. Seventy apostles were sent out two by two into the world to share Christ. I assume the chosen twelve educated, trained, and equipped these seventy, Matthias being drawn by casting lots.

Thoughts?

Hi Dennis,

Interesting topic there, bro. I'm sure the other 9 apostles would be asking the 3 that had been with Jesus all sort of questions.

Now remember Jesus told the disciples/apostles that they were to witness of His resurrection to the Jews. Paul, however, was sent to the Gentiles with the further revelation of Jesus being the Head of a whole new group, the body of Christ, the new man. 

Also, remember that the disciples were still looking for Jesus to come and set up His rule through Israel over the nations. (Acts 1: 6) And that offering to Israel was still open till the leaders of the Jews rejected the Holy Spirit. (Acts 28: 25- 29)

Even in our day we see the two purposes going on at the same time. We know that God brought His people Israel back to their land and they became a nation in 1948. This we both call the terminal generation till the Lord comes to deliver them. As for us, in the Body of Christ we are another purpose of God, and our time is nearly up.

I am now writing my last series in my blogs, called `The Middle East.` I think you would be interested in it. I will probably finish it in a week or so. 

Oh, remember what Paul told Timothy - (Paul - Timothy - faithful men - others also. A network of relationships.)

`And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach other also. ` (2 Tim. 2: 2)

Marilyn.

[AdHoc]

19 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Dennis,

My hubby said - potential.

I agree and believe that Jesus worked with the 3 in depth and then they would each work with 3 = 12. And so, on as we also work with a few at a time, in depth, and then they go and do the same.

Cc @Dennis1209

We mostly disagree so I'm joyous to go with this one. In Romans 8:28-29 we see God acting with "foreknowledge" and once the foreknowledge had done its work, those few are "predestined". These three were TAKEN as companions ON HIGH - the same word in Matthew 24 when two are in the field ONE is TAKEN (as a friend). But immediately a difficulty arises. This event is not to show the Kingdom! In Matthew 19:28 ALL TWELVE are to e in the Kingdom, so the Kingdom is not at the forefront.

If you cover the Chapter and verse markings, the context starts in 16:24 - the losing of your soul-life. Then, the presence of Elijah and Moses must be included. When will an identical event take place? I believe - The Rapture.
We have Jesus changing into to His glory
We have Elijah who was still alive - speaking for those alive at the time our Lord comes
We have Moses who speaks for two things. The resurrected saints and the chastised saints
We have a high mountain showing the saints "caught UP" and a heavenly revelation
We have it AFTER six days - 6 x 1,000 year days since Adam
We have THREE Taken Up - three, those who lived by Christ's resurrection life (Rom.8:1) - Overcomers
We have the rest staying in the valley, defeated in faith

We have a clear picture of the rapture by harvest style where the ripe are taken up while the rest must face the Beast.

[Dennis1209]

13 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Cc @Dennis1209

We mostly disagree so I'm joyous to go with this one. In Romans 8:28-29 we see God acting with "foreknowledge" and once the foreknowledge had done its work, those few are "predestined". These three were TAKEN as companions ON HIGH - the same word in Matthew 24 when two are in the field ONE is TAKEN (as a friend). But immediately a difficulty arises. This event is not to show the Kingdom! In Matthew 19:28 ALL TWELVE are to e in the Kingdom, so the Kingdom is not at the forefront.

If you cover the Chapter and verse markings, the context starts in 16:24 - the losing of your soul-life. Then, the presence of Elijah and Moses must be included. When will an identical event take place? I believe - The Rapture.
We have Jesus changing into to His glory
We have Elijah who was still alive - speaking for those alive at the time our Lord comes
We have Moses who speaks for two things. The resurrected saints and the chastised saints
We have a high mountain showing the saints "caught UP" and a heavenly revelation
We have it AFTER six days - 6 x 1,000 year days since Adam
We have THREE Taken Up - three, those who lived by Christ's resurrection life (Rom.8:1) - Overcomers
We have the rest staying in the valley, defeated in faith

We have a clear picture of the rapture by harvest style where the ripe are taken up while the rest must face the Beast.

Let's switch gears, do a 360° turn (as opposed to a military about-face, LOL), and approach this subject from a perspective that makes more sense.

Would we agree that the Bible contains many patterns, shadows, and typologies? Enoch, Elijah, Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple and Tabernacle, heaven on earth, etc.? What about Jewish traditions as types and shadows, namely, 2nd Temple period Jewish wedding customs, law, and procedures? I find it helpful to shed my Western and modern thinking by studying scripture.

The condensed version: Either a marriage was prearranged between families, or a suiter would come and ask her father for her hand in marriage; either way, this was the formality, pattern, and tradition.

The potential bride would already have her dowry in store (here, I will substitute crowns and works for the kingdom of heaven). If it was acceptable to the bride's father, the marriage was negotiated and agreed upon with the purchase price for the bride, an earnest payment of betrothal (here, I see the cross and Holy Spirit as the down payment). At this point, it was legal, a legally binding contract between the two; they were looked upon as legally married. Starting to sound familiar?

The future bride was expected to remain devoted and faithful until the wedding and patiently await the time of his unknown return. Generally, the young man did not have his inheritance and was not on his own yet, and he still lived with his father in his estate. He leaves his betrothed and returns to his father's house to add an addition to his father's house (the New Jerusalem) for himself and his betrothed.

When the father was satisfied everything was ready and in order, he told his son to fetch (redeem) his bride and bring her back here. He does not telephone, text, or email ahead, alerting her of his impending (imminent) arrival. Not until those posted and watching for his arrival (five wise virgins) see him approaching the bride is alerted, and the bridesmaids (helpers-attendants) escort him into the bride's chambers and attend the wedding and feast.

Every detail of this custom and tradition matches and mirrors the marriage of the Lamb. I am missing the part where the bride is abused, too immature, requires further growth, domestic violence, beaten with stripes, earns her place as a bride through tribulation, or cast into outer darkness.

The question is, are these laws, customs, and traditions representative of the church's harpazo? I suspect so.

cc: @Marilyn C