[ISBE – Zealot]

A party bent on seeing the Law observed which, according to Josephus, was known to have used violence and assassination to pursue their ends. Their hatred for foreigners was extreme, and they may well be the same group referred to as the Assassins (Ac 21:38 – An Egyptian had come and led four thousand of the Assassins out to the wilderness.)

[Nelson’s]

Simon was likely given this name to keep him distinct from Simon Peter, he having been a member of the party known as the Zealots. This was a fanatical sect offering military opposition to Rome. They saw themselves as Simon and Levi, as Phinehas, as Elisha – devoted supporters of the Lord and His Law, ready to fight for the Law. The Zealots considered it treasonous to pay the Roman taxes since God was Israel’s king. The movement degraded to become the Sicarii, the Assassins. Perhaps of greatest interest, it was the Zealots who controlled Jerusalem prior to the siege that brought its destruction, and it was the Zealots who held out in the Masada three years later.

[Unger’s]

“Fanatical defenders of the theocracy.”

[M&S]

Here, it is noted that if the movement existed during the time of Christ, it would have been in its infancy.

[ISBE – Assassins]

Josephus says this group were robbers who would join with the festival crowds with short daggers hidden in their clothes. With these, they would stab their enemies. Their first victim was Jonathan the high priest. They had an unfading hatred for Rome and those who sympathized with Rome.

There is not a great deal that we can know about Simon from the pages of Scripture. The only thing we are told about him is the surname given to him: the Zealot. If this is, as would seem reasonable, a reference to his membership in the sect that bore that name, it does tell us a little bit about him. The Zealots, like the Pharisees, have something good in their beginnings, but lose it in the course of their development. The Zealots were primarily interested in upholding the Jewish theocracy. God is in charge, and there can be no other king. Of course, this left no room for Rome in their thinking. Where they went off course was in promoting violent opposition not only to the Romans, but for those who cooperated with them in any way (such as paying taxes). This violence marred their original intentions, and they seem to have devolved into just another player in the struggle for power in Jerusalem. It is said that they held Jerusalem at the time of its fall to Rome. If so, and if one is to believe what Josephus says of the behavior of those in the city leading up to this battle, then they had completely lost sight of God in their pursuit of power.

However, these were later developments. McClintock & Strong’s indicates that the movement would have been in its infancy at the time that Simon met Jesus. So, we need not think of him as a man of violence. We should, however, recognize in him a ‘fierce advocate of Mosaic ritual,’ as M&S puts it, as a ‘fanatical defender of the theocracy,’ according to Unger’s.

When I think about how impossible the Pharisees found it to accept what Jesus was saying, it seems all the more surprising to find one such as this amongst His followers. What would have attracted him to Jesus? Perhaps, although I read nothing to indicate this, the movement began as a rejection of what the Pharisees had become. After all, that group was satisfied to allow the Romans their taxes and their rule, just so long as they could enjoy their own privilege and power. If the Zealots were as thoroughly devoted to having God alone as king, this would not sit well. That being the case, perhaps Simon was attracted by Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees. He who is my enemy’s enemy is my friend. If this were the case, though, he must have experienced some severe shocks as he followed after this new Teacher!

On the other hand, it may well have been what Jesus taught that attracted him. Consider how Jesus amplifies the meaning of the Law in His teaching, raising the rule of Mosaic Law back to its proper height. Hearing such things must have been music to the ears of the theocrats. At least until they began to grasp the implications. If they were so focused on seeing the Law upheld, it must be a crushing matter to realize that no man can uphold the Law in full. Was it this understanding that drew Simon to Jesus? After all, it is the natural tendency in man to be converted only when his desperate state is made plain to him. If this one who had devoted himself to the cause of the Law suddenly discovers that the Law is impossible for him to heed in full, what hope is left him? Surely he will turn to the One who has shown him the problem, hoping for a solution.

However he may have come to Jesus, there is this that we know. Jesus chose him. Jesus specifically selected him from the hundreds who followed Him at the time to become a leading factor in the Church. We learn nothing directly as to what things Simon accomplished for the kingdom, at least not from the Scriptural record. But, we can know that Jesus had a purpose in His choice. There are some texts that would suggest that he took up the leadership of the church in Jerusalem after James was martyred, but nothing conclusive.

Some believe that Simon was one of the brothers of Jesus, along with James and Judas. Others, including Eusebius insist that these three were not His brothers. Given the reaction we see from Jesus’ family later in the course of His ministry, it would seem Eusebius is probably right.

A couple of comments found out on the web: Some suggest that Simon may have gone to Britain to preach. One page also noted this interesting point: Jesus chose Simon of the Zealots, and Matthew the tax-collector, who could only have been at each others’ throats, to both be numbered amongst His chief disciples. In that sense, we could see the selection of those two – who receive the least mention in Scripture – as an early parable regarding the inclusive nature of the kingdom. There is neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free…

What becomes clear is that Simon had a lot to overcome in himself to be a follower after this Jesus. So many preconceptions would have to be set aside, so many prejudices overcome. How many of us find ourselves in the same situation! We all of us come to Jesus with baggage. We have our opinions, mostly formed by a world that refuses to know Him, and wants us to know it. We have our lists of those we are sure could never qualify as godly people. Of course, we tend to forget that we are on somebody’s list as well. Indeed, it probably wouldn’t be going too far to say that I was on my own list, and I’ve met others who think in those terms: God would never accept me. Of course, few if any of us have had to deal with thinking ourselves too righteous for God’s company. Simon may have had to deal with that, given his prior associations. The Pharisees had to deal with that. The modern American? Probably not.

So, let us learn this much from the unknown Apostle. We all have a lot to overcome in ourselves, and we are all powerless to do so on our own. We are all welcomed into the family of God in spite of what needs to be done in us, because He is already on the job, making certain it gets done. None of the Apostles came pre-qualified and ready to go to work. They all had to be made apostles, changed from what they were. We will be no different. We must be changed from what we were and made what Jesus calls us to be. We must likewise recognize that all our brothers and sisters in Christ are in this same situation. Finally, we must acknowledge that if Simon could accept Matthew, we can surely accept one another, whatever our pasts may have been.