College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 10:5-15

Section 23

JESUS COMMISSIONS TWELVE APOSTLES TO EVANGELIZE GALILEE

II. JESUS INSTRUCTS AND CHARGES THE TWELVE HOW THEY ARE TO PROCEED

TEXT: 10:5-15
A. THEIR WORDS AND WORKS

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:

but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give.

B. THEIR EQUIPMENT AND CONDUCT

(Matthew 10:9-15; Mark 6:8-11; Luke 9:3-5)

Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses;

10.

no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.

11.

And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth.

12.

And as ye enter into the house, salute it.

13.

And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

14.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.

15.

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What do you see are the differences between the first commission of the twelve and the so-called Great Commission? (Matthew 28:19-20)

Was all of Matthew 10 applicable to the first commission? Or was Matthew summarizing in this one place material from other commissions that properly applied to their own setting?

Is any of Matthew 10 intended for today? If so, what portion(s)? If not, why not?

Why do you suppose Matthew connects the names of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4) with the commission which follows, using the phrase These twelve Jesus sent forth. ? Who were these twelve men socially, religiously, politically? What did they amount to? Who had ever heard of them?

If it be true that a prophet is not without honor except in his own country, in his own house and among his own kin, why then did Jesus deliberately send these practically unknown Galilean Apostles to labor in their own country and among their own people? What could possibly be gained by this tactic? Could not Jesus foresee that the Galileans would possibly refuse and reject His Apostles as Nazareth rejected Him because they thought they knew too much to accept them?

Why would Jesus, the Savior of all mankind, send His Apostles only to evangelize Israel? Did Jesus not care for the Samaritans or Gentiles? But Jesus deliberately limited the Apostles-' ministry to Jews. How can you justify this apparently blatant nationalism in Jesus-' practice?

Why does Jesus call His own people lost sheep? What was there about the Jewish people that caused them to fit this apt description?

Why did Jesus empower His Apostles to work miracles? How could that help Him to further His own ministry? Would there not be confusion created by six pairs of men going out doing the same works as Jesus? Which man would the multitudes know to follow if so many worked miracles and preached?

What great, purely Christian doctrine is wrapped up in the simple instruction: Freely you received, freely give?

If the Apostles were going to be travelling all over Galilee evangelizing why were they not going to need to take a lot of equipment and clothing along for their journey?

In what way(s) would it be more tolerable for great sinful cities of the past, than for a city that refused the Apostles and their message?

What is so important about staying at the home of one respected family during the Apostles-' stay in a town?

What is so important about not charging for the miracles the Apostles worked or for the messages they preached? What is the psychological principle behind this advice? In other words, why is this always good judgment, and properly applicable to Christian workers today?

Is it wrong for a preacher to receive wages? How do you know? Did not Jesus say: Freely you have received, so freely give?

How do you harmonize these two apparently contradictory statements: Freely give and The laborer is worthy of his food? Is not Jesus expecting His disciples to work without expecting wages, while yet expecting to be supported by the very people to whom they minister? Support or wages, what is the difference?

Did Jesus ever revoke His command to the Apostles to pursue their evangelistic labors lightly equipped? Would it be wrong for a missionary or evangelist today to purchase the most useful modern equipment he could effectively put to use to make the Gospel heard?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

These twelve Apostles Jesus sent out to evangelize Galilee, with these instructions: Do not go off to Gentile country and stay out of Samaritan towns. Concentrate on the lost sheep of Israel. Preach as you travel, announcing the arrival of God's Kingdom. Heal the sick people, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and cast the demons out. What you have received without paying for it, give without charging for it.
Do not take a lot of unnecessary extra equipment on your journey. For example, you will not need a lot of silver and gold, no, not even copper coins, in your purse. You are not to take even one suitcase and no lunch. Take only the sandals on your feet and the tunic on your back. Do not even take a change of clothes, nor two pair of sandals nor an extra staff,one staff is enough. Why? The working man earns his upkeepyou work hard preaching for me and folks will take care of you!
Now, regardless of what town or village you come to, look for someone who is respected there. Make your home with him until you go on to the next town. When you stop at his house, wish the household peace. If the household deserves it, then the peace in your salutation shall come upon it. But if that house does not deserve your -shalom-', then your blessing of peace will return to you and leave when you do.
Now should anyone or any town not receive you or listen to your words, here is what you are to do: if they refuse to hear you, then when you leave that house or town, give them a visible demonstration of your fulfilled responsibility for trying to save them, by shaking the dust of their house or streets off your feet. I can tell you this: it will go easier on judgment day for the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town!

SUMMARY

The aforementioned Twelve were sent by Jesus to preach only to Jews in Galilee the message of the arrival of God's Kingdom. They were to give the miraculous evidence of their authority, without charging for it. They were to travel light, depending upon good people to help them. If they were rejected they were to keep going. To reject them is to incur God's punishment.

NOTES

I. A PARTICULAR ZONE FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD (10:5, 6)

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth. These twelve, taken as a phrase following immediately upon the heels of a precise list of the names of the men as well as after two specific references to the number twelve, becomes especially emphatic or is nothing but a clumsy redundancy. Why does our author express himself this way?

Matthew may be marveling at the comparative insignificance of these men Jesus chose, in contrast to the overwhelming importance of the task to which Jesus called them. These twelve? Who are they? Had the power clique of Judea (Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate and company) glanced at the list of the makers of a new empire that would bring all other kingdoms, rule and authority to their knees before the Nazarene, they would have sneered, Who are these? Not a one of them in Who's Who! How can this Jesus expect to amount to anything, when He's placing all His hopes on rabble like that? Imagine: not a rabbi among the whole lot! With quiet inner joy that can come only from knowing the power and victory possible in the Master's service, Matthew responds, Yes, just imagine Jesus-' using THESE twelveof all people! But it was this group that Jesus choseno others. He knew what He was about. He made the decision to use these nobodies to change the world.

Or it may be that Matthew, in connection with the context which his ninth chapter provides, intends to remind us here that these are the very men with whom Jesus had shared His vision, whom He had involved in a prayer campaign for workers. Morgan (Matthew, 102) has it:

Pray ye, is the first command; go ye is the next. The men who have learned to look with the eyes of Jesus until they feel with the heart of Jesus and who, out of such vision and such feeling, begin to pray, are more than half ready for the work of bringing in the harvest,

These twelve Jesus sent forth two by two, says Mark, This strategy has proven itself time and again by its sound psychology:

Maclaren (PHC, 246) challenges us to learn the good of companionship in Christian service, which solaces and checks excessive individuality and makes men brave. One and one is more than two, for each man is more than himself by the companionship.

The Jewish mentality toward the witness borne by anyone had trained people to expect the testimony of two men to be more weighty than that of one, even though the one were speaking the truth. (Cf. Jesus-' way of arguing in John 8:16-18). So two Apostles, working together, could give more powerful convincing witness to the deeds and message of the Christ.

McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 363) adds, Different men reach different minds, and where one fails another may succeed.

And charged them, saying (paraggeìlas). This is a formal order, and especially imperative in light of the peculiar nature of the order given: Jesus had to be particularly clear in laying out the work for His men, since some of the things He would have to say contradicted the men's own view of themselves and of the work they must perform.

Go not into any way of the Gentiles and enter not into any city of the Samaritans. Barclay (Matthew, I, 372) points out the evidential value of this sentence: This saying is so unlike the mind of Jesus that no one could have invented it. He must have said it, and there must be some explanation. Its provocative character becomes immediately apparent when we think of Jesus as the universal Christ, for if there is a portion of the race for whom Jesus is not Lord, then He is not worthy of our ultimate consideration. For all of His great accomplishments, if His message is not for every man, then we may yet suspect that His Word is not final and we have yet someone else higher up with whom we shall have to do. Surprisingly, Jesus deliberately limits His men to Israelitish country.

But this is not latent nationalism or inadvertent parochialism in the program of Jesus. It is just common sense under the circumstances. How so?

The Gentiles had not been given 2500 years of thorough preparation under the Law and prophets as had the Jews. Therefore, they would not have been quite as ready to appreciate this final revelation God was giving through Jesus the Messiah, as would the Jews.

Were the Samaritans any better prepared? They retained their denominational form of Judaism, badly mixed with pagan ideas. (See encyclopedic articles on the Samaritans; also Butler's comment on John 4:7-9 in the College Press series, p. 141.)

When one considers the strong Jewish prejudice against all that was non-Jewish, this expedient of limiting the Apostles-' ministry to the Jews at this time is just common sense, even though the Lord will later, under different circumstances, broaden even this commission. The time is not yet come when the Apostles-' own thinking is broad enough to comprehend a universal Gospel for the entire human race. And if the Apostles themselves had this difficulty, how much more scandalized would Jesus-' more distant followers be, were they to witness the shocking (to them) spectacle of a wholesale opening of the Kingdom of God to just anybodyeven Gentiles and Samaritans! (Study Acts 11:1-3) Jesus must yet disarm their prejudices as much as possible, while He makes this final appeal to the Galileans by means of this limited mission of the Twelve. So the prohibition itself arises out of Jesus-' general master plan for establishing His Kingdom on earth. He aims ultimately to conquer the world, but to do this, He intends to secure a strong base of operations first. This He does among those most likely to be ready. Later He can countermand this order, turning the Apostles loose on the whole world. (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Acts 8:25)

This latter fact becomes a clue that helps determine how long this particular, limited commission was to last and how much of it was intended for that period. Morgan (Matthew, 103) reminds us that with His crucifixion, the order initiated ended, and save in fundamental principles, the commission of those verses has no application to us.

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This command, stated just this way, links the Apostles-' mission inseparably with the very motives that moved their Lord, and probably became their own driving force, to share God's mercy with His lost people. (See on Matthew 9:36) Jesus deliberately uses that figure out of His own vision of lost Israel to call the attention of His men to the most fundamental character of the work they were to do. He could have said more simply: Evangelize only the Jews, But He is not merely indicating the proper field in which to begin, He is setting before their minds an unforgettable metaphor that provides them at the same time both direction and motivation. Should anyone object to this severe limitation of the Apostles-' outreach, let it be remembered that this limitation bounded Jesus too. (See on Matthew 15:24) Lenski's observation (Matthew, 391) has point here:

What Jesus had done on one occasion in Samaria (John 4:3-42) and on certain occasions for individual gentiles (as in Matthew 8:5, etc.) and what he had hitherto said about salvation for all men (Matthew 5:13-14; Matthew 8:11) was prophetic, was not intended for the present but for the great days of the future.

To appreciate this severe limitation of the scope of the Apostles-' work, we must recognize in what context Jesus sets these limits; otherwise, we will but find what seems to be a charge contradictory to the otherwise unsullied universality we have come to associate with Jesus. Why limit the Apostles-' ministry to Israel?

The time element is extremely important to notice. This commission comes long before the salvation for the whole world had been made a reality through the cross, burial and resurrection of the Lord. It will be noticed later (see on Matthew 10:7) that the message of the Apostles was not the final form of the universal Gospel intended for the whole world, when the fundamental facts of this Gospel had been enacted upon the stage of history in Jerusalem. This commission, coming as it does almost in the middle of Jesus-' own earthly work (see on Matthew 10:1), certainly not later, is to be judged in light of the progressive revelation of the Kingdom that He is making. It is imperative that we remember that it is Matthew himself who informs us both of this limited commission here and of the universal commission later (Matthew 28:19). It may be safely presumed that he could differentiate between them, seeing no contradiction between them.

The sociological element: Israel was most prepared of any one group to receive the good news these men had to tell. Here in this nation would be the most ready, most immediate reception. This is, of course, relative, since many Gentile hearts, hungering for truth, security and liberation, would have been just as receptive as those among the Jews, as later experiences of the Apostles seem to indicate. (See, for example, Acts 10; Acts 11:19-26; Acts 13:4-12; Acts 13:16-50; Acts 17:4; Acts 17:11-12, etc.) But there seems to be a divine order that stands behind and governs (Jesus-' approach to the world: these perishing Jews were especially precious to God for the sake of the fathers (Romans 11:28), and though they have no prior claim to anything, God has a prior claim upon them! (Cf. Romans 1:16; Romans 2:9-10; Romans 3:1-3; Romans 9:4-5) So they ought to be sought first. Also, as suggested above, due to the apparent Jewish feeling of their prior rights to all that God offers, Jesus might stand to lose all hope of convincing those among the Jews who could otherwise have been won, were He to begin at this point a general Gentile ministry in conjunction with His evangelization among the Jews. Sociologically, He must not rock the boat just yet.

The maturity of the Apostles is an important matter. Their own preparation was still limited to the point that labor among their own people upon familiar ground was essential to permit their succeeding at all. Barclay (Matthew, I, 373) is right in saying: A message has little chance of success if the messenger is ill-equipped to deliver it. This does not mean that their power or authority was lacking, since Jesus was providing this directly Himself. It means, rather, that their personal character needed time and experience to mature. This is considerate forethought on the part of the Lord: He gives them tasks they can handle, but tasks which will qualify them for larger ones later. Listen to Bruce's description (Training, 98):

Their hearts were too narrow, their prejudices too strong: there was too much of the Jew, too little of the Christian, in their character. For the catholic work of the apostleship they needed a new divine illumination and a copious baptism with the benignant spirit of love. Suppose these raw evangelists had gone into a Samaritan village, what would have happened? In all probability they would have been drawn into disputes on the religious difference between Samaritans and Jews, in which, of course, they would have lost their temper; so that, instead of seeking the salvation of the people among whom they had come, they would rather be in a mood to call down fire from heaven to consume them, as they actually proposed to do at a subsequent period. (Luke 9:54)

This point cannot be overemphasized, since human beings are incurably worshippers of heroes, children never tiring of playing follow the leader. The Apostles were to provide new heroes, new leadership to their own people, now tired of leaders who had not the slightest notion where they were going, who instead of giving real spiritual refreshment, wandered around seeking answers to their own dark doubts. But the new leadership of the Apostles must reflect as nearly as possible the mind of Christ. They must sound no uncertain notes, give no false impressions. Because of prejudice and ignorance and moral failure in their hearers, rejection may be judged inevitable in many cases, but insofar as the Apostles themselves were concerned, the rejection must not arise out of some inadequate or false conception of their own. The message of God for any age carries with it its own stumbling block and its own foolishness (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25), and there are difficulties enough without some weakness in the bearer of the message, which give greater occasion to reject it.

The limited amount of time Jesus may have wanted to expend upon this educational experiment with the Apostles is another factor. The Apostles must have practice working by themselves without Jesus-' being present if they are to learn to work well alone. But they must not spend too much time by going too far afield, else they would not be able to return in time for correction, encouragement and instruction. Jesus Himself had a limited time-schedule too. So Jesus limited their objective for them. (Cf. note 1 on Matthew 10:23)

Someone, on the basis of the strong Jewish prejudices that were probably present in the Apostles themselves, might object, But would the Apostles even be tempted to go to Gentile or Samaritan cities at this point in their labors, at this crux in their own maturity? If they were rejected by many Jewish cities, as Jesus here pictures (Matthew 10:13-15), then they certainly might be so tempted. Also the happy memories of the unusually warm reception given Jesus by the Samaritans at Sychar might tempt some Apostle to consider such a ministry. (See John 4:1-42)

This very admonition in itself is strong evidence that Jesus never had anything in His mind less than the ultimate goal of WORLD evangelism. This charge, by its very existence here, clarifies the point that Jesus could never have made an unconscious slip that furtively betrays a latent nationalism. For, if a world-wide mission had not already been on the mind of Jesus and the subject of some of His private lessons, or had Jesus constantly hammered on a strictly Jewish Messiahship, there could have been no need for this limitation. His men would never have dreamed of crossing the borders into Gentile or Samaritan country.

II. A PARTICULAR MESSAGE FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD. (10:7)

Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. As you go, preach (poreuòmenoi kçrùssete) differs from the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19: poreuthéntes mathçteùsate) at least in form, if not also in emphasis. The command here (Matthew 10:7) is expressed in the vivid, moving present tense: Preach as you go or Preach on the way; whereas the Great Commission, by using an aorist participle attached to an aorist tense imperative verb, actually commands the Apostles to begin to go and make disciples. In this latter case (as also in Mark 16:15, poreuthéntes eis tòn kòsmon. kçrùxate), the emphasis seems to be upon both the command to go as well as the command to preach or make disciples (See Burton, Moods, 173, 174)

Though here (Matthew 10:7), as in the Great Commission, the same rule applies to the participles, relating them to the function of the principle verb in each case, yet Jesus-' emphasis is not so much on the going, as on the preaching while they are going. This is seen immediately when it is remembered that He had already clearly commanded them to go: Go not (Matthew 10:5, mç apélthçte) and Go (Matthew 10:6, poreùesthe). The resultant advance in thought throws the logical emphasis forward to the proclamation while they moved across Galilee.

Why bother with this? Would not the Apostles be tempted to think that they would begin their official evangelistic work only when they arrived at such and such a city? But Jesus opens their eyes to every person they encounter as they travel: their travelling companions, the people in whose homes they would enter along the way. Every one is to hear the good news, not merely those at the destination of the journey. Note also the omission of the prohibition to salute no man along the road. (Cf. Luke 10:4)

The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Notice the continuity in the revelation of the Messiah and His rule: this had been the message of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2), and then of Jesus (See note on Matthew 4:17); now it is to be the principal theme broadcast by the Apostles. Why?

The Apostles-' very messages, thundered before an electrified nation, would identify them immediately in the popular mind with John and Jesus, In the very nature of the case, this was as it should be, for there really is a logical progression and connection in these three steps: the harbinger of the Messiah, the Messiah Himself, then the Messiah's ambassadors. It was imperative, however, that Israel feel this connection, lest it seem to those who saw the Apostles at work that somehow the ministry and following of Jesus had suddenly fragmented into chaotic little groups scattered over the country. Rather than witnessing the sight of six pairs of men all announcing a different gospel, Israel is confronted with Jesus Christ and the coming Kingdom of God now on seven different fronts!

Repentance and the rule of God is a message always in order. (Cf. Paul's preaching years later, Acts 20:25) The rejection of God's good government was what made men sinners in the first place: only repentance and submission to God's rule can make men whole again. (Cf. Mark 6:12)

This was the very message that must be proclaimed as groundwork preparation before Jesus could declare the Kingdom.

As suggested by the title of this section, this was but a particular message for a particular period. This is not the type of message that could be preached after the consummation of the great events surrounding the passion, victory and coronation of the King, as well as the commencement of His royal rule on earth. Obviously, the Apostles could not announce facts that had not yet occurred, facts upon which the very Reign of Christ must necessarily be founded, There was much for Jesus yet to do: destroy the fundamental separation between Jew and Gentile, conquer death, offer Himself as the sufficient sacrifice for sin and bring victory to man through His own victory. Before Jesus could seal the universal pact of God with the world, He must eliminate the old covenant, having fulfilled it. But these grand facts were then all yet future.

The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Though this was the Apostles-' exciting announcement, they were not sufficiently prepared, nor was it Jesus-' purpose, to identify Him and His program as messianic. Their task was to prepare the way for Jesus, thus leaving Him free to develop this popular enthusiasm, thus aroused, as He saw best. It is impossible not to speculate whether the Apostles would have been asked by their audiences for the identity of the Christ-King. Since the Apostles would have had to refer this question to Jesus, and since, immediately following this evangelistic tour, we find the multitudes beginning to identify Jesus as the Christ, it is clear that the Twelve themselves did not clearly declare Jesus-' Messiahship. Otherwise, the multitudes would not have had to speculate for themselves, had the Twelve openly declared Him to be such. (Cf. Matthew 14:1-2; Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9; John 6:14-15) These disciples, then, were to limit themselves to heralding the near arrival of God's kingdom. But this joyous announcement did not exhaust the good news (see Luke 9:6, euaggelizòmenoi), for the coming of God's rule carried with it moral consequences for which Israel was not prepared. Israel must repent! (Mark 6:12; see notes on Matthew 3:2, Vol. I, 94)

III. A PARTICULAR CREDENTIAL FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD (10:8)

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick: see on Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:6 under point VI of this chapter's outline. Raise the dead: though there is no record that the Apostles brought men back from the dead during this early ministry, they certainly did this later (Acts 9:36-42; Acts 20:9-10). Cleanse the lepers: is this particular type of healing mentioned to show the extent of God's healing power operative in the Twelve, i.e. even to the point of curing such a defiling disease as leprosy? Cast out demons. Besides the obvious power over Satan that this represents, does Matthew include this command to display the full range of the glorious power intrusted to the Twelve? If so, why this particular emphasis on demons? (Cf. Matthew 10:1; Mark 6:7; Mark 6:13; Luke 9:1) Is it that Jesus would have them realize that the struggle in which they were engaged was a personal battle with Satan himself? (Cf. Matthew 10:24-29) If so, every victory over demons signalled the establishment of Christ's sovereignty over that much more of the devil's former occupation. When the Seventy returned from their particularly successful mission, they rejoiced especially that they were able to exorcize demons. Jesus-' comment on this was a declaration of the fall of Satan, (Luke 10:17-20)

Freely ye received, freely give, Morgan (Matthew, 104) is quite right to point out that it is because men have lost the sense of the proportion of our Master's orderly speech that, today, some imagine that all this is still our work. This is not our work. We have no commission to heal the sick miraculously. This commission of those Apostles and early disciples (cf. Luke 10:9) was the proof of their identity with Jesus-' program and their miracles became the evidence of the consequent divine authority. The need for such supernatural credentials disappeared once the kingdom of Jesus had been proclaimed throughout the entire earth. (Cf. Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 1:8) They disappeared, because in the nature of the case they were no longer needed to authenticate the message as from God, since this fact had been well established.

While it may be true that the need for SUPERNATURAL healings, as special credentials authenticating the divinity of the message, has passed, yet even today mercifulness, expressed in practical ways and in proper subordination to the message proclaimed, becomes a powerful credential in the thinking of the unbelieving world. The same generous spirit behind the Apostles-' healings can motivate Christians today to share what they have to provide certain necessities of life (hospitals, schools, primary necessities, etc.), a gesture which convinces the doubters and wrings from the scoffers the confession that these Christians really care about a man! But the modern Christian must not confuse this generosity with evangelism. This help is only one among many credentials that lends credibility to the message (Cf. John 17:21; John 17:23), since it shows the consistency between the Christians-' message and their practice. It shows that God is really producing through the Gospel the very persons that the Gospel is supposed to produce. There may be many opportunities to evangelize a people otherwise unreachable, whose hearts are thus opened to receive the Gospel. But the work of the doctor, teacher or school (or hospital) administrator is not missionary evangelism and should not be called such. How many doctors, teachers, administrators on mission fields have gotten bogged down in the sheer mechanics of their professional work and find that they have no more opportunity to proclaim the very message that challenged them to take up their work in the first place. They might have gained insight from Jesus-' own refusal to let His ministry be primarily a miraculous medical practice. He felt frustrated when people wanted to use Him for their own private purposes and stedfastly refused to get overly concerned about His message. A person can be a missionary anywhere in the world today regardless of his profession by which he earns his living, but he is a missionary because he is first of all a Christian in that place, not because he is a teacher or healer. A person has to decide his usefulness as a missionary by how well he is able to express the Gospel incarnate in his own life in that place, given the limitations imposed upon him by the situation itself.

Freely ye received, freely give. This sentence contains the most profound statement of the whole character of Christianity, as well as the practical expression of it in the Apostles-' personal lives and ministry. God's gracious mercy has not given anything to anyone, including the Twelve, on the basis of their having deserved it. Characteristically, the very Christianity thus given by God, has the power in it to cause men, who share Jesus-' mentality, to be just this generous. These men had already seen this unlimited, generous spirit in Jesus Himself. (Matthew 4:23-24; Matthew 9:35). Whereas the Lord Himself constantly, unselfishly and disinterestedly expended all the power of heaven to meet the needs of suffering humanity, although He could have charged dearly for His goods and services, yet He shared as He did out of that pure motivation of unmixed concern for those people He loved and who needed His help. His own pattern of giving out of His own merciful passion to share, only for the sake of those He served, expecting no pay in return, now becomes the standard by which His people model and judge their own giving.

Jesus is saying to His men: I have charged you no tuition for all the lessons in the Kingdom of God, I have charged you nothing for the power to work stupendous miracles in my name, there is no fee for admission into the band of Apostles. In terms of monetary value, all this has cost you nothing, since I chose to give it to you without charge. Now, since you are but responsible administrators of this stewardship, you are not to act as if you were the owners of it with full power to dispense it at any price you choose to command. These free gifts are merely given you on their way to others! It would be so easy to make the miracles a lucrative source of income and be able to justify it on the basis of its value, while at the same time suggesting that the money would be used for the support of Jesus-' ministry. But so to have employed them would have reduced the miracles to mere articles of trade and robbed them of their power as evidence of the presence and activity of God in the world of men.

The very ambiguity of the phrase Freely you have received, unclear in the sense that the Giver is not clearly identified, reinforces the earlier comment (Matthew 10:1) that Jesus and God are somehow to be closely identified, since obviously it was Jesus who gave them this power, while anyone with the moral sense to see would know that this power was God'S.

How do we harmonize this demand, that the Apostles help people without charging for their services, with the comforting remark that the laborer is worthy of his food (Matthew 10:10), or worthy of his wage (Luke 10:7)? The Apostles and other laborers must freely bestow their great gifts without charge of any kind. They will have already seen to their food and lodging, however, by having sought out the godly people of a community whose hospitality saw to those needs. As will be seen on Matthew 10:10, the worthiness intended is in no way based upon the Apostles-' distribution of miracles, but a recognition of the value of the work they are doing. It is not a purchase, on the part of the householder, of some special miraculous gift, nor is it an exchange of some miraculous gift, on the part of an Apostle, for hospitality. (See on Matthew 10:10)

IV. A PARTICULAR METHOD FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD (10:9-15)

In this section Jesus is dealing with the fundamental question on the mind of any reasonable, far-sighted man: how were these workers of His to be supported during their labors? To the modern westerner, and perhaps to the Apostles themselves, unused as they were to the modus operandi here outlined, Jesus-' words cannot but strike a tone of madness. As we read through the instructions, we are made immediately aware that Jesus is literally stripping His men of every visible means of support. We would have expected that Jesus give His men every possible advantage in order to carry out their mission but here He deliberately orders them to dispense with all those accoutrements men usually think necessary for a journey of the nature they are about to undertake! While the Twelve themselves would have admitted that these instructions were proper for the rabbis, yet, psychologically, they might well have had some difficulty seeing themselves accepting the customary courtesies and generous hospitality usually accorded those venerated men. After all, in their own view, the Apostles may still see themselves as converted publicans, fishermen and what-not. They may feel they are entering a world where they do not belong, where they do not know their place. Yet, this consideration does not hinder Jesus for a moment from placing His men to this initial test under real-life conditions.

The specific commands of the Lord in this section become to the Twelve but the practical application of Jesus-' proscription of anxiety for material needs, seen in the Sermon on the Mount. He practically strips them of their self-reliance; so that they HAVE to go out in the confidence that God would always see to it that faithful men in each locality would receive them and provide for their needs during their labors there. Later, Jesus tests them on this very point: Did you lack anything, when I sent you out without anything? Their terse but eloquent reply was, Nothing. (Luke 22:35 f) Bruce (Training, 108) summarizes this section so neatly:

His instructions proceeded on the principle of division of labor, assigning to the servants of the kingdom military duty and to God the commissariat department.

Lest we overemphasize the uncertainties of the situation into which Jesus sent His men, let us remember here that Jesus orders His men on a short tour of just a few weeks (see on Matthew 10:1), after which He will definitely revoke these limitations mentioned in this section. (Luke 22:35-38) These men were to labor among their own people, among orientals to whom hospitality was a sacred honor and obligation. Further, the Apostles themselves were to carry out a ministry of teaching and healing that would, in a sense, earn themselves the esteem and recognition of those who would open to them their homes. While some of the instructions in this section will definitely be changed later, due to the changed nature of the ministry which the Twelve and the early Christians will then have to perform, this does not mean that Jesus changed His method on the supposition that this earlier technique failed. The change of instructions simply means that Jesus accomplished His original plans for the early training missions of the Apostles among their own people, then changed His directives to match new situations. Under the universal commission (Matthew 28:19-20), they would be evangelizing in distant lands among widely varying mentalities regarding hospitality toward strangers and regarding providing the daily needs of religious leaders. Hence, because they could not then depend upon a relatively uniform Jewish hospitality in pagan lands, they needed a different method of operation. It would be a drastic mistake to apply these rules, given here for a limited operation, to any mission of the Apostles or other evangelists in pagan lands after Jesus-' ascension.

Matthew 10:9 Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses. The expression: get you no gold. must be taken in the sense: Do not procure. (ktçsçsthe), since Mark and Luke's parallels at this point put the antithetical emphasis on what the men should (nor should not) take along. (Mark 6:8, haìrõsm; Luke 9:3, haìrete) Also, this getting refers to their preparations for (their) journey (Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; cf. Matthew 10:10) The getting, then, has no reference to the Apostles-' seeking these things mentioned, during their journey, as if they would expect to be paid for their ministry by receiving these items mentioned at the hand of those who benefit from their work Jesus is not talking about receiving anything DURING the journey, but preparation for the journey. Their getting refers to the provisions they would otherwise have gotten together before undertaking the trip. They were to go exactly as they were, with no extra supplies beyond what was needed for the absolutely immediate present. (Edersheim) Jesus is saying, Do not take those things travelers generally regard as indispensably essential. Go confident that your needs will be provided. Let all your concern be centered upon your work, not upon yourselves. This distinction between the getting as preparation for the trip, and the getting, suggested by some, as support received from those benefitting from the Apostles-' ministry, is not so important in itself, as an expression of the meaning of this single text. Rather, it is important as a key that unlocks the supposed mystery involved in verses that follow, especially the supposed contradiction between the Synoptists regarding what the Apostles were to take along during their journey. It is the failure to note this distinction that has kept reasonable men from seeing the possible harmony between the Gospel writers at this point.

No gold. silver. brass means money for groceries, lodging and other essential expenses. In your purses, or girdles (KJV) or belts (RSV) expresses the same function as modern money belts, since the sash or leather belt provided just this convenience of carrying valuables close to the body, besides holding the robe in place. (It should be no surprise that robbers strip a man, not only to have his fine robe, but to get at his money belt! Cf. Luke 10:30)

Matthew 10:10 No wallet for your journey. Wallet (pçra) may be simply a small suitcase, a knapsack or traveler's bag. but perhaps this passage has in mind the more specialized meaning beggar's bag.. Such a bag was part of a Cynic itinerant preacher's equipment. Such a bag was also used by shepherds. (Arndt-Gingrich, 662) If it be the beggar's wallet that is meant, this requirement means that the Apostles are to consider the help they receive from generous hosts as salary, not beggar's alms. In a sense they will have actually earned (cf. Luke 10:7) what is given, so they are to accept what is offered graciously, but with the clear understanding that by their spiritual ministry they will have earned it. If the suitcase idea is in the Lord's mind, then He is saying, If you are not going to take along a lot of special provisions, food, clothing and other equipment, you are not going to need a bag to carry it in!

As we consider what the Twelve must (or must not) include, it would be helpful here to list the items side by side:

They were NOT TO PROCURE OR TAKE:

They were to TAKE ALONG:

Money

Bread (food)

Bag for the journey

A (new or extra) staff

The one staff they had

Two tunics (one extra)

The one tunic they wore

An extra pair of sandals

The sandals they had on.

This interpretative analysis seeks to harmonize some of the otherwise seemingly contradictory details where the Synoptists seem to disagree. Neither two coats: presumably they would take the one they had on, but were not to provide themselves with another one for a spare. However, coats, as such, is not the question here but tunics (chitônas), a garment worn next to the skin by both sexes, a shirt. (Arndt-Gingrich, 890) See Matthew 5:40 for a good example of this distinction from that cloak or robe which should properly be called a coat. Nor shoes, rather, specifically sandals (hypodçmata): a leather sole that is fastened to the foot by means of straps. (Arndt-Gingrich, 852) These are not shoes in the modern understanding of the word. Since Mark (Mark 6:9 records Jesus as requiring His men to wear sandals (sandàlia), presumably He means that His men are to wear the pair they have on, in whatever condition they may be, but are not to procure another pair for the journey. Nor a staff: while it is simple to harmonize Matthew with Mark's (Matthew 6:8) take nothing except a staff. by saying they were not to take time procuring another staff in addition to the one already in hand, it is more complicated to harmonize with Luke's forthright Take nothing. no staff. Three solutions are possible:

Luke's (Matthew 9:3) no staff has exactly the same force as Matthew's (Matthew 10:10) nor staff, and means to convey no more than Do not take time to procure a staff.

Since the habit of some of the Apostles may not have been to use a walking stick in their long marches with the Master, they are here ordered not to make even that much special provision.

If it be asked whether a man would use two staffs in journeying, we have a third possible solution: Since you are not going to be carrying a lot of extra provisions or an extra bag, you will not need an extra staff over your shoulder on which to carry those things.

If it be objected that in every case where an apparent contradiction between the Synoptists arises, we have presumed an extra item as a spare, then let it be noticed that Jesus Himself points the way to this solution. All three Evangelists record the prohibition: Do not take two tunics, a fact which shows the spirit of the entire section: Take nothing extra, nothing beyond what you have with you right at this moment. Reinforced with this one illustration, consistently reported by all three Synoptists, the proposition is more than probable that we may deal similarly with the other items, which seem to us who read the lists, not to have been reported consistently. Finally, one of the axioms of the harmony of all truth is that if a satisfactory harmony can, be shown between two apparently contradictory facts, they may not be said to be contradictions, regardless of the degree of apparent contradiction.

For the laborer is worthy of his food. This is the reason the Lord adduces for giving the foregoing instructions. They will not need to make careful preparations along the lines suggested above, since another higher principle will be operative in this case. In Matthew 10:11-14 Jesus will make specific what is here stated in principle.

Food states in one word all that is necessary to sustain the men's life and work. The disciples were to accept just what was offered, without demanding something more or something different: if it is food, he is not to be fastidious; if it is enough, he is not to be greedy. (Cf. Luke 10:8)

The laborer is worthy: The Apostle who has really worked at the ministry to which I have sent him, will have really earned all he gets. It should not at all surprise us to hear Jesus use the word wage (misthoû) in Luke 10:7 in regard to another mission, but with reference to the evangelists-' support. How encouraging this declaration must have been to men who, though Apostles in name and partly so by training, were but timid beginners. You men are WORTHY of all the support you get. There can be no doubting this truth, since these fledgling Apostles while in the homes shared their true spiritual treasure. In fact, they gave much more than they ever received back in food and lodging! This very principle is the basis of Paul's argument that those who proclaim the Gospel should receive their livelihood from those who accept the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Timothy 5:17-18) This support for God's workers, then, comes from those open-handed people who recognize the validity of the work the Christian workers are carrying forward. This, says Jesus surprisingly, is to be God's provision for you men. He shall not provide miraculous bread (as, for example, the support of Elijah at Kerith and Zerephath), but common bread given by godly people.

Worthy: Jesus sets a high value on the men because of the special ministry they were to perform for Him. You are worthy of whatever help you receive. But in my view, those people who receive you will be judged worthy also. If they do not receive you, they are not worthy and will be condemned. Their true worth is determined by whether they receive you or not. (Cf. Matthew 10:11-15)

This is all good theory if it will work. The Apostles, immediately upon beginning their first mission, were going to find out whether or not it is practical to trust Jesus-' theories. They themselves were going to have to live literally by faith. Even though they had been seeking the Kingdom of God with a more or less single-mindedness and were more or less already unconcerned about food, clothing and shelter ever since they began to accompany Jesus in His travels, yet now the immediate security of Jesus-' person is going to be taken away temporarily. Until now Jesus had been with them, and the ultimate responsibility for such matters devolved generally upon Him. Now, however, they were to work without Him for a short period, literally living from day to day, with no forethought or preparation for these normal, human necessities of life. Is it not merciful of Jesus to toughen His men to the realities of faith and to the habit of depending upon God in this practical way? His approach to their weakness and need for this practical experience in trusting God is psychologically sound in its gradualness, in its definiteness, and in the element of real risk these men recognized. This was no mere drill, no false alert: it is the real thing, but on a level where the men themselves could respond at the level of their own growth.

Matthew 10:11 And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy. This is the tactic the Apostles are to use in order to secure themselves food and lodging before they ever mention a word about the mission on which they have been sent. There is to be no necessary connection between their being ambassadors of Jesus of Nazareth and the hospitality they required, as if the former were a condition of the latter, at least when the Apostles were making these preliminary inquiries for hospitality. Of course, as they become the guests of people, these will learn of their mission. Should these then thrust them out of their houses, out of antipathy to Jesus, then their mission becomes a condition of their hospitality (or rejection).

What kind of inquiry is here required? Is it probable that the Apostles went around asking who were the best, most godly people in town, most noted for their hospitality? Why not? If the elders of the city, sitting in the city gate, cannot tell you immediately several names of such people, out of oriental courtesy one of the elders themselves may take you into his home. (Cf. Genesis 19:1-3) So the indirect question who in town is worthy (?) is answered by the estimate of the townspeople themselves: This family (or that) is worthy. Would the Apostles have gone door-to-door seeking lodging without first talking to the city fathers? Would the city fathers be likely to suggest the best homes of their city to strangers, without first making some inquiry into the business that brings these strangers into town? The answers to these questions depend upon whatever mentality or attitude toward travelers the Jews in general of that period may have had.

Why is this inquiry important? Three reasons suggest themselves:

Because the messengers and their message would be marked for good or ill by the known character of those who received them cordially into their home. Though they were to proclaim a Gospel for all, publicans and sinners included, yet the high holiness and importance of the message must not be able to be spoken against merely because of an imprudent choice of hosts whose character or notoriety scandalizes potential hearers. The Apostles themselves would all too soon be marked as unworthy men, due to their association with Jesus of Nazareth and their fundamental and necessary opposition to the traditions of the fathers. In this work they would need every advantage they could gain. In the eyes of the people their association with the truly righteous people in a city would tend to sanction their mission as from God. (While it is true that that generousness of spirit that manifests itself in hospitality toward strangers is no always present ingredient in the practical godliness of people deemed orthodox, worthy or pious, yet true godliness tends to produce in the godly this characteristic generosity.)

Another obvious importance of this injunction is to reduce, in the disciples themselves, any sensitivity about accepting the hospitality of others. As humble disciples of the lowly Nazarene, they might have been inclined unwittingly to downgrade their own program by not going directly to the best people. After all, they might have argued, what right have we to be wined and dined as if we were the highest rabbis in the land? But so to have reasoned would have been to have missed the supreme importance of their own mission. They would be no mere rabbis, but the royal ambassadors of the King of the Universe!

Further, and probably a factor much more important than either the public image of the Apostles or their own personal hesitancy, is the advantage of a nucleus of believers from which to work. Assuming that the truly worthy of a city were also godly Jews, looking for the Kingdom of God in deeply spiritual terms, these people would be the most, receptive to the Apostles-' message and could form within Judaism cell groups of believers in Jesus. After Pentecost these could be turned into congregations of the Church. (Study the working from fixed centers in each town in the later mission of the Apostles: The Church in their house of Romans 16:5; Romans 16:11; Romans 16:14-15; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2.)

Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy. Feel the infectious confidence of the Master, also pointed out by Bruce (Training, 110):

He took for granted, that there would always be found at every place at least one good man with a warm heart, who would welcome the messengers of the kingdom to his house and table for the pure love of God and of the truth. Surely no unreasonable assumption! It were a wretched hamlet, not to say town, that had not a single worthy person in it. Even wicked Sodom had a Lot within its walls who could entertain angels unawares.

And this confidence could not help but infect the Apostles with the certainty that the mission on which He sends them is no fool's errand, but a campaign carefully planned down to the last detail.

There abide till ye go forth. (Cf. Luke 10:7, Remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.) The fundamental emphasis here is stability and contentment, excellent virtues that recommend those who possess them:

Stability, because no momentum would be lost by an endless round of feasting. Thomas (Land and Book, cited by PHC, 249) testifies that

oriental hospitality involves a practical system, including a round of visits, involving much ostentation and hypocrisy. It is time-consuming, mind-distracting, leads to levity and in just about every way, counteracts the success of a spiritual mission. The very nature of the Apostles-' work demanded serious concentration.

Even if the modest circumstances of the hosts did not permit so lavish an entertainment in view of the Apostles-' intention to remain in a town longer than would be accorded other travellers passing through, still it was not their mission to be entertained, but to proclaim the Kingdom. This single-mindedness, obvious in the attitude of the Apostles, testified to the townspeople that these men valued their time, had important business to attend to and needed to be free to work. It is very difficult to carry on work when one must constantly keep an eye on the luncheon calendar or on the dinner memos. It is not impossible, if people properly understand your work, but especially difficult if they do not or else refuse to collaborate.

Contentment, because if they wandered around like mendicant monks or appeared to be dissatisfied with the hospitality of the people, or as idle men fond of change, people would hardly take them seriously or give their message a second thought. Though not sins per se, being connoisseurs of fine foods and rare wines was not for the Apostles.

Jesus-' advice is a question of emphasis and common sense. Neither banquets nor wide-ranging hospitality are wrong; they just get in the way of serious, sustained work. A different bed every night, ranging from extra hard to lumpy and a new cook every day who is trying to out-do her predecessor in providing the finest feast the visitors ever saw, is enough to kill any Apostle!

Matthew 10:12 And as ye enter into the house, i.e., the house chosen in the manner described above, salute it. (Cf. Luke 10:5, Whatever house you enter, first say, -Peace to this house!-') Salute. peace are practically equivalent terms, since the Jewish Shalom is not only a greeting, but a prayer that the peace of God bless those thus greeted. (Cf. John 20:19; John 20:26. The antithesis is 2 John 1:10. See also the introductions with which the Apostles begin their letters as well as many of the concluding salutations, e.g. 2 Thessalonians 3:16; 1 Peter 5:14; 1 Peter 3 Jn. 15) Jesus urges His followers to be friendly, courteous and respectful toward those who might serve as hosts for the Gospel proclamation in a village. There is no bullying here, no insisting upon special rights to hospitality as Jesus-' messengers, no demanding clergy discounts. He requires them to show the customary regard, following the common rules of social behavior. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:12-24; 1 Peter 3:8-11) They are to cultivate a spirit of good will. Good public relations are necessary, but this must be gained without compromise of principle. Even though we cannot, and must not, leave people comfortable in the deadly state of unrepentant sin, yet our generous friendliness and obvious good will that treats them as people with whom we hope to live in harmony, can be the means of opening their mind to the gospel we preach.

Matthew 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. The Apostles were intending to bring the Kingdom of God itself to that home, with all its benefits and blessings! People could hardly guess what really stood there at the door in the person of the Lord's Apostles, but if they opened their homes to receive them, all these marvelous favors would be theirs. If they fail to hear the voice of God in these humble Galilean preachers, they forfeit their key to God's treasury. Nevertheless that which the Apostles so earnestly desired to give them, would come back to the givers themselves. So the Twelve are not to be at all discouraged by even this set-back, knowing that they may even rejoice in rejection for Jesus-' sake. (Cf. Matthew 5:10-12) God's peace will hold them stable in such storms. This, of course, can never diminish the tragedy of every refusal to accept the Apostles-' message.

If the house be worthy. not worthy. It may not immediately appear whether a house is really worthy, in the sense that it accepts the Apostles for sake of the Person and message of Jesus that they bring. Some time may elapse before it becomes clear whether the house is really worthy in the highest sense of the word. So the Apostles are not to stand outside the door and wait for the householder to decide whether to permit them, as messengers of Jesus of Nazareth, to enter. If it be not worthy cannot be construed to mean that the Apostles made a mistake about the worthiness of the house, since their inquiries in town led the townspeople to agree that this household was worthy, in the general sense of generous, hospitable. But, although a generous, open-hearted family is usually open to new truth, it is not always so. Upon learning the nature of the Apostles-' purpose, the householder, driven by prejudices, prudence or other motives, may reject and eject the Apostles because of their mission and views.

Here Jesus-' practical instructions accord perfectly with His theory. He has taught the disciples that evangelistic efforts will not produce the same results in every area, hamlet or human heart. (Cf. Matthew 13:18-23) Now as He sends His men forth to begin their own sowing of the seed, He warns them not to expect equal success everywhere: some cities and homes would receive them; some would not.

In relation to the general question of application of this section to the general pattern of history Jesus seems to be describing (see on the introduction of chapter 10), let it be noted here that even in those cases where a house or city that rejects the Apostles, there is no suggestion of a clearly defined persecution. Morgan (Matthew, 103) is probably right in saying:

He was rejected, but they were treated with respect, even by the crowds. The crowds argued with them, tried to understand what relation they bore to Jesus, asked them what Christ meant by certain things; but did not persecute them.

While it is probably true that the Twelve were not unaware of the rejection of Jesus by the large majority of the ruling class and by many of the common peopleand especially so as the Apostles themselves became more and more aware of the spiritual nature of His claims and intentionseven so, this rejection still did not bring direct persecution to the Apostles until after Jesus-' ascension. This latter act left the Apostles, the obvious successors to the crucified Nazarene, exposed to the wrath of the Master's enemies. Only then did they feel the full force of real persecution.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as you go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. His very foresight and instructions are geared to defeat discouragement by simple rejection or disappointment by difficulties. For Jesus, it is not enough that they simply leave town. Rather, He outlines specific directions what to do in the event some refuse to be won, do not receive them and obviously close the doors to all further conversation. The Twelve are to act in a specific way which takes away the initiative from their would-be detractors. Even if their words could not be said so as to be heard, because people were hurling insults too loud to permit the Apostles a last word, or because people shut their ears (Cf. Acts 7:57), the Apostles-' last message was to be a pantomime. Another very clear symbolic act that conveys the same meaning is a real or pantomimed washing of one's hands of the whole matter. Remember Pilate. Paul shook his garments. (Acts 18:6) In this silent witness, the Apostles were relieving themselves of the responsibility for the judgment of that house or city. (Cf. Ezekiel 3:16-21; Ezekiel 33:7-9) It is significant that Jesus gave them something very specific to remember to do in such a moment, since the Twelve might otherwise be tempted to call fire from heaven to incinerate the opposition!

The dust meant here is literally the street dust on the Apostles-' sandals, easily picked up on one's feet while walking along the often unpaved streets of the towns. (Remember here the practical usefulness and kind courtesy involved in washing someone's feet, or at least in providing water so that he himself can do it. Luke 7:44; John 13:4-16) But dust had become a Jewish symbol for the moral responsibility for something described in the phrase the dust of ---. (See Edersheim, Life, I, 644) Brushing the dust off their shoes, then, becomes the vivid warning to the citizens of a city that rejected the Apostles, that they hereby discharge themselves of any further responsibility for the fate of that house or city. Its meaning is clear: the Apostles were preaching their last sermon in this symbolic act: Your blood be on your own heads; we are blameless and leave you to your doom. While you reject us and our message, the fact remains that you ARE responsible for what we have tried to tell you. The kingdom of God HAS actually come near you, but you rejected it. (Cf. Luke 10:11) Now that we have fulfilled our mission to your city, we hereby remove every trace of our responsibility for your salvation.

It has been noticed by some commentators that the dust of Gentile territories was considered by the Jews to be defiling, in which case the Apostles are seen as treating those cities which reject them in the same fashion as if they were Gentile cities. These see the Apostles as brushing the dust of defiling unbelief from their feet, or something of the sort. Granted that certain Jews viewed the dust of Gentile lands as defiling, would Jesus accede to this Pharisaic concept even to provide His ambassadors a vivid warning to use in the event of their rejection? Perhaps, since He might use popular language or ideas that convey a clear meaning, even though both He and the Apostles were clearly antagonistic to the fundamental notion involved in the language. (Even the language purists of the Christian faith today speak of Pope Paul VI, even though they deeply reject all the unfounded pretensions upon which his position and title is based, for example. They use this title and name, simply because not many people would know who or what is meant if they started talking about Giovanni Battista Montini, the pope's real name.) One should be careful about pushing this argument too far, since Jesus clearly teaches elsewhere, what really defiles a man. So we know that He knows that mere dust, whatever its origin, is not defiling. But when, for example, Jesus cites the OT books as being authored by those ancients whose names they have traditionally borne, and He cites them without correction or comment, this is revelation, not mere accession to popular language or merely traditional notions.
Should anyone object to the morality of leaving a city or home to its own moral doom, with no more apparent doggedness and merciful patience in seeking to win its inhabitants to fundamental acceptance of the Kingdom of God than is expressed here in this text, it is sufficient here to respond that this instruction must be interpreted in the context of this first training mission of the Twelve. Barclay (Matthew, I, 380) has it:

This is an instruction that. comes from the situation in which it was given. It was simply due to the time factor; time was short; as many as possible must hear the proclamation of the Kingdom; at that time there was not time to argue with the disputatious and to seek to win the stubborn; that would come later.

If we have understood correctly the time-outline of Jesus-' message here given, Pentecost follows, not precedes, this first rapid mission of the Twelve. So there was time for patient labor later, but not on this trip. Further, since we find a similar expression in the practice of the Apostles at a later period (Acts 13:51; Acts 18:6), it is important that we recognize the fundamental distinction between the function of the Apostles who must blaze new, unknown truth from city to city throughout the world, and that of those pastors and teachers who remain in a town to minister patiently, mercifully seeking to convince the unconvinced however long that process takes.

While Luke 10:10-11 is not strictly parallel to this text, it nevertheless gives the best, full commentary on what the Apostles-' attitude and actions must be. Bruce (Training, 111) draws this mature judgment about that text:

Solemn words, not to be uttered, as they are too apt to be, especially by young and inexperienced disciples, in pride, impatience, or anger, but (they are to be uttered) humbly,, calmly, deliberately, as a part of God's message to men. When uttered in any other spirit, it is a sign that the preacher has been as much to blame as the hearer for the rejection of his message. Few have any right to utter such words at all; for it requires rare preaching indeed to make the fault of unbelieving hearers so great that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them. But such preaching has been. by the apostles.

Even this last word of the Apostles to a city or home is an act of mercy, for it leaves the uncompromising message of faithful Apostles firmly fixed in the mind of any standing among the unbelievers, who might yet be won later. Even this firm, stern warning is to be given in the spirit of: Bless and curse not. (1 Peter 3:9; Romans 12:14)

Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Jesus reaches back into patriarchal history (Genesis 19:1-28) for the event that most vividly pictures God's swift, terrible punishing power and comes up with the cremation alive of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose obdurate wickedness was so notorious and so demanding divine justice that the greater marvel is not their spectacular punishment, but the patience and mercy of God to let them live as long as He did! This destruction is used by Jesus as a point of comparison between the lot of these cities and the destiny of those cities who rejected the Apostles-' message. This comparison is the more vivid for the Jews who were accustomed to thinking of these cities as particularly wicked, deserving punishment. (Cf. Matthew 11:24; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7; Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 1:9-10; Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; Jeremiah 49:18, etc.)

Perhaps it would be more advantageous to deal with the evidential value of this text in a separate article. (See the special study: Jesus-' Witness to Old Testament Inspiration by John Ransom in this Volume.) However, one cannot help noticing the seriousness with which the Lord presents this illustrative point of comparison. He treats both the incident of the destruction of those ancient cities as well as the written source from which the incident is derived as if the whole narrative about them were serious, sober history and the document (Genesis) which contains it as entirely to be relied upon. It is not enough to say that Jesus merely cites a legendary (hence, somehow, fictitious) tale of a horrible destruction to give particular point to His declaration regarding those cities that reject His messengers. If it be thought that He merely appeals to a traditional story accepted by the Apostles as historically true, but objectively reducible to the level of undocumented ancient tradition,an appeal for which Jesus, as a speaker borrowing allusions without Himself authenticating their origin or validity, cannot be held responsiblethen, the following reasons may be offered for the conclusion that Jesus IS responsible for the true information about the origin and validity of the facts out of the Old Testament He is using and by His use He is revealing truth regarding those books about which it is, at best, now difficult to verify the authenticity:

In general, Jesus clearly reveals His divergence from commonly-held mistaken Jewish notions. It may be reasonably supposed that He would not fail to do so on the question of the authorship or authenticity of OT books or facts, where-insofar His own arguments depended upon those books or facts. But in none of His citations or allusions to OT books or events does He once make and editorial correction or necessary emendation of this problem that is so vital to our knowledge of OT facts and origins.

There is here, also, a moral question: can Jesus remain consistent with His own advertised ethic, when at the same time He is demanding of others absolute honesty and thoughtful helpfulness, He Himself fails to disabuse His misled followers of their dependence upon the OT books then available to them and their mistaken belief of the facts contained therein?

Further, can Jesus be the revealer of the mind of God, as He claims, when at the same time He is going around basing His pretensions upon books, accounts or passages that modern Biblical criticism would seek to reduce to legends, fables, traditions or, at best, later accretions of a kernel of (true) fact?

In order to deal with these questions properly, each should be taken separately as a theme to develop as argument for the conclusion offered. But these questions DO raise problems for those who would discount wholesale entire sections of OT Scripture as devoid of historical value, i.e. from which no certain knowledge of ancient facts may be derived. So, Jesus-' mention of the cremation of Sodom and Gomorrah has real point, since, unless Jesus tells us elsewhere that that miracle did not, in fact, take place (which, according to the available materials in the four Gospels, He does not do), Jesus Himself may be said to accept the reality of the painful punishment of those perverts.

But what is the exact point of (unequal) comparison here? Jesus is saying, If you think that the certainly merited, but unspeakably horrible, punishment meted out on Sodom and Gomorrah was terrible, let me assure you that I consider rejection of you Apostles and disbelief of my message to bear as such a far more evident proof of wickedness, that the doom of those unbelievers, who dare turn down your offers of divine mercy, will be even more so. It will actually go easier for those ancients when they face the final judgment, than for these moderns who will have turned their backs on God's Kingdom!
But why should Jesus-' condemnation of those cities that do not receive the Apostles be so severe? How could it be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city?

Was it because those hamlets or homes that rejected the Twelve principally because they came as ambassadors of Jesus of Nazareth, would be guiltier than the great, wicked metropolises of antiquity who knew not the identity of the messengers of God who came among them? But did the inhabitants of Sodom ever learn the identity of the apparently normal men who were Lot's guests? There is no connection made in the text, between their being stricken blind and the identity of the angels who so struck them. Nor is there any evidence of an angelic visit to Gomorrah, such as that to Sodom, inasmuch as God's interest in these cities was the rescue of Lot for Abraham's sake, His judgment having already predetermined the devastation of these cities. So it does not appear that the identity of the messengers itself is the point of the comparison.

It would be more correct to say that the Sodomites and those of Gomorrah, however indescribably wicked they may have been, had had no opportunities to know God's message, equal to the opportunities of those to whom Christ's Apostles preached. (See notes on Matthew 11:20-24) Guilt is based upon opportunity to know the truth. While the Jews-' rejection of the Apostles, relatively speaking, is not such a bad sin, gross, flagrant and foul as that of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet it is so much more inexcusable and worthy of so much more excruciating severity, since the Jews would have had a more excellent chance to know the truth and act upon it. Lenski (Matthew, 397) shows why it should go harder for disbelievers than for Sodomites:

To lie in sin and thus to perish is bad;
To lie in sin and, in addition, to reject grace, and thus to perish, is worse.

Jesus is so hard on the disbelievers who shut their ears to the Apostles, since He knows that the Gospel they preach is the opportunity of a lifetime that once rejected might never return. The Gospel appeal might never again be felt.

Having once successfully resisted the appeal of the message, they may well rest content in having maintained their orthodoxy and their faithfulness to the traditions of their fathers by repudiating this upstart Nazarene and his band, hence be more confirmed than ever in their unbelief.

They might die before the Apostles or early Christian evangelists can bring the Word around to them again. (See on Matthew 10:23) Historically, this occurred in Palestine, since the Apostles could not finish evangelizing even that small country before the horrible death by persecution and martyrdom of the majority of the Apostles themselves and the smashing juggernaut of the Roman might which devastated the nation, hurled the Jews into a black eternity without another occasion to hear the message of grace.

By means of this grand and awesome declaration, Jesus accomplishes two purposes:

He clinches His argument about the reliability of support from God through His people. God, whose laborers they are, not only fully recognizes their need for support, but He is especially concerned whether they received it or not, while carrying out their ministry for Him. So concerned is He that He would notice even the dust on their feet and what it testified to Him about the Apostles-' reception in a given area! So, if God may be depended upon to vindicate His messengers-' word as His own, how much more sure is He to provide their every need in exactly the way He promises them to do so?

He gives evidence of His own deity and divine authority. Jesus has just declared that those wicked cities, overthrown by God, will actually have it (comparatively) easier than any city or house that refuses His own Apostles. He must be the Judge Himself to be able so confidently to announce the outcome of what is most surely known to God, the final judgment!

In the day of judgment. Though Jesus is already announcing some of the verdicts of that final day, He does so in a more or less private way to His disciples, whereas on that great day He will render these verdicts public before the whole universe. But the disturbing nature of these declarations could not escape these men, and we must not miss them either: judgment is certain. As certainly as God's punishment rained down upon those wicked cities, so certainly will the impenitent cities (and, in our day, those schools of theology) that laugh the Apostles and their disciples out of town, face their ruin at last.

FACT QUESTIONS

What specific area were the Apostles to evangelize?

What specific ethnic groups were the Twelve to avoid at this time?

Explain the wisdom of Jesus in this choice, in relationship to the Apostles-' personal ability, maturity and preparation.

Show what motives prompted Jesus to commission these twelve men to work at this particular task.

On what other occasion is there a similar commission given to some disciples, thus enrolling them in Jesus-' ministry?

What message were the Apostles to preach? What did the message mean?

What was the purpose of the miracles in the ministry of the Twelve?

What were the Apostles to freely give? What was it that they had freely received?

Explain what is meant by the instructions to salute the house, your peace will come upon it, and your peace will return to you.

10.

What is the meaning of the oriental expression: Shake off the dust of your feet? Is Jesus to be taken literally or figuratively here? What would this expression have meant to the Apostles? Should we try to apply the same attitude involved in this expression today? Give a good 20th Century paraphrase for this expression, showing thereby your application. .

11.

List the items the Apostles were to take along during their journeys.

12.

List the items the Apostles were NOT to take along,

13.

Locate and give the history of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in such a way as to show the impact of the warning behind Jesus-' words that for that city which rejected the Apostles-' message it would go worse on judgment day than for those ancient cities.

14.

Do the restrictions Jesus placed upon this mission apply to every mission the Apostles are to perform? What evidence do you offer for your answer?

15.

Stare the declarations in this section that emphasize the divine authority of Jesus.

16.

Harmonize the apparently contradictory instructions regarding the disciples-' taking shoes or sandals and staves. Were the disciples to take no staff nor shoes or at least one pair or what?

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 10:5-15

Old Testament

New Testament