part [a St. Matt. x. 5-15.] applies entirely to this first Mission of the Twelve, although the closing words point forward to 'the judgment.' [b ver. 15.] Accordingly it has its parallels, although in briefer form, in the other two Gospels, [c St. Mark vi. 7-11; St. Luke ix. 1-5.]
1. The Twelve were to go forth two and two, [d St. Mark vi. 7.] furnished with authority [1 So also in St. Matthew and in St. Mark. But this 'authority' sprang from the power which he gave them.] or, as St. Luke more fully expresses it, with 'power and authority', alike over all demons and to heal all manner of diseases. It is of secondary importance, whether this was conveyed to them by word only, or with some sacramental sign, such as breathing on them or the laying on of hands. The special commission, for which they received such power, was to proclaim the near advent of the Kingdom, and, in manifestation as well as in evidence of it, to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. [2 Dean Plumptre remarks: 'The words ('raise the dead') are omitted by the best MSS.'] They were to speak good and to do good in the highest sense, and that in a manner which all would feel good: freely, even as they had received it. Again, they were not to make any special provision [1 Weiss (Matth. Evang. p. 262) has the curious idea that the prohibitions about money, &c, refer to their not making gain on their journey.] for their journey, beyond the absolute immediate present. [2 Sandals, but not shoes. As regards the marked difference about 'the staff,' Ebrard (Evang. Gesch. p. 459) points out the agreement of thought in all the Gospels. Nothing was to be taken, they were to go as they stood, without preparation or provision. Sometimes there was a secret receptacle at the top of the staff to hold valuables, or, in the case of the poor, water (Kel. xvii. 16).] They were but labourers, yet as such they had claim to support. Their Employer would provide, and the field in which they worked might well be expected to supply it. [a Comp. for this latter aspect 1 Tim. v. 18.] [3 According to Jewish Law, 'the labourers' (the, at least), would be secured their food. Not so always, however, slaves (Gitt. 12 a). In general, the Rabbinic Law of slavery is exceeding harsh, far more so than that of the Pentateuch (comp. an abstract of the Laws of Slavery in Fassel, Mos.-Rabb. Civil-Recht, vol. ii. pp. 393-406).]
In accordance with this, singleness of purpose and an entire self-denial, which should lead them not to make provision 'for the flesh,' but as labourers to be content with daily food, were the further injunctions laid on them. Before entering into a city, they were to make inquiry, literally to 'search out,' who in it was 'worthy,' and of them to ask hospitality; not seeking during their stay a change for the gratification of vanity or for self-indulgence. If the report on which they had made choice of a host proved true, then the 'Peace with thee!' with which they had entered their temporary home, would become a reality. Christ would make it such. As He had given them 'power and authority,' so He would 'honour' the draft on Him, in acknowledgment of hospitable reception, which the Apostles' 'Peace with thee!' implied.
But even if the house should prove unworthy, the Lord would none the less own the words of His messengers and make them real; only, in such case the peace would return to them who had spoken it. Yet another case was possible. The house to which their inquiries had led them, or the city into which they had entered, might refuse to receive them, because they came as Christ's ambassadors. Greater, indeed, would be their guilt than that of the cities of the plain, since these had not known the character of the heavenly guests to whom they refused reception; and more terrible would be their future punishment. So Christ would vindicate their authority as well as His own, and show the reality of their commission: on the one hand, by making their Word of Peace a reality to those who had proved 'worthy;' and, on the other, by punishment if their message was refused. Lastly, in their present Mission they were not to touch either Gentile or Samaritan territory. The direction, so different in spirit from what Jesus Himself had previously said and
done, and from their own later commission, was, of course, only 'for the present necessity.' [1 The direction is recorded by St. Matthew only. But St. Matt, xxviii. 19 would, if it were necessary, sufficiently prove that this is not a Judaistic limitation.] For the present they were neither prepared nor fitted to go beyond the circuit indicated. It would have been a fatal anticipation of their inner and outer history to have attempted this, and it would have defeated the object of our Lord of disarming prejudices when making a final appeal to the Jews of Galilee.
Even these considerations lead us to expect a strictly Jewish cast in this Discourse to the Disciples. The command to abstain from any religious fellowship with Gentiles and Samaritans was in temporary accommodation to the prejudices of Flis disciples and of the Jews. And the distinction between 'the way of the Gentiles' and 'any city of the Samaritans' is the more significant, when we bear in mind that even the dust of a heathen road was regarded as defiling, [a Sanh. 15 b; Ned. 53 b.] while the houses, springs, roads, and certain food of the Samaritans were declared clean, [b Jer. Abhod. Z 44 d.] At the same time, religiously and as regarded fellowship, the Samaritans were placed on the same footing with Gentiles, [c Jer. Sheq. i. 5, p. 46 b.] Nor would the injunction, to impart their message freely, sound strange in Jewish ears. It was, in fact, what the Rabbis themselves most earnestly enjoined in regard to the teaching of the Law and traditions, however different their practice may have been, [d Ab. i. 13.] Indeed, the very argument, that they were to impart freely, because they had received freely, is employed by the Rabbis, and derived from the language and example of Moses in Deut. iv. 5. [e Ab. iv. 5; Bekhor. 29 a.] [2 At the sametime the statement in Bekhor. 29 a, that 'if needful money was to be paid for the acquisition of learning,' according to Prov. xxiii. 23 ('by the truth'), implies that the rule cannot always have been strictly observed.] Again, the directions about not taking staff, shoes, nor money-purse, exactly correspond to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-precincts with staff, shoes [3 The Manal () or shoe, in contradistinction to the Sandal (), as in Jer. Shabb. 8 a.] (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle, [f Ber. ix. 5 ] The symbolic [4 The Pundah ( ), or Aphundah ( ). Comp. for ex. Jer. Shabb. 12 c] The symbolic reasons underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably the same: to avoid even the appearance of being engaged on other business, when the whole being should be absorbed in the service of the Lord. At any rate, it would convey to the disciples the idea, that they were to consider themselves as if entering the Temple-precints, thus carrying out the principle of Christ's first thought in the Temple: 'Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?' [a St. Lukeii. 49.] Nor could they be in doubt what severity of final punishment a doom heavier than that of Sodom and Gomorrah would imply, since, according to early tradition, their inhabitants were to have no part in the world to come, [b Sanh. x. 3.] And most impressive to a Jewish mind would be thesymbolic injunction, to shake off the dust of their feet for a testimony against such a house or city. The expression, no doubt, indicated that the ban of the Lord was resting on it, and the symbolic act would, as it were, be the solemn pronouncing that 'nought of the cursed thing' clave to them, [c Deut. xiii. 17.] [1 The explanations of this expression generally offered need not here be repeated.] In this sense, anything that clave to a person was metaphorically called 'the dust,' as for example, 'the dust of an evil tongue,' [d Jer. Peah 16 a.] 'the dust of usury,' as, on the other hand, to 'dust to idolatry' meant to cleave to it. [e Sanh. 64 a.] Even the injunction not to change the dwelling, where one had been received, was in accordance with Jewish views, the example of Abraham being quoted, who [f According to Gen. xiii. 3.] 'returned to the place where his tenthad been at the beginning.' [g Arach. 16 b, lines 12 and 11 from bottom.] [2 So common, indeed, was this view as to have become proverbial. Thus, it was said concerning learned descendants of a learned man, that 'the Torah returned into its Akhsanya ((),' or hospice
(Baba Mez. 85 a, bis, in the curious story about the successful attempts made to convert to study the dissolute son of a great Rabbi).]
These remarks show how closely the Lord followed, in this first part of His charge to the disciples, [h St. Matt. x. 1-15.] Jewish forms of thinking and modes of expression. It is not otherwise in the second, [i St. Matt. x. 16-23.] although the difference is here very marked. We have no longer merely the original commission, as it is given in almost the same terms by St. Mark and St. Luke. But the horizon is now enlarged, and St. Matthew reports that which the other Evangelists record at a later stage of the Lord's Ministry. Whether or not when the Lord charged His disciples on their first mission, He was led gradually to enlarge the scope of His teaching so as to adapt it to all times, need not be discussed. For St. Matthew himself could not have intended to confine the words of Christ to this first journey of the Apostles, since they contain references to division in families, persecutions, and conflict with the civil power, [k vv. 16-18.] such as belong to a much laterperiod in the history of the Church; and, besides, contain also that prediction which could not have applied to this first Mission of the Apostles, 'Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.' [m ver. 23.]
Without here anticipating the full inquiry into the promise of His immediate Coming, it is important to avoid, even at this stage, any possible misunderstanding on the point. The expectation of the Coming of'the Son of Man' was grounded on a prophecy of Daniel, [a Dan. vii. 13.] in which that Advent, or rather manifestation, was associated with judgment. The same is the case in this Charge of our Lord. The disciples in their work are described 'as sheep in the midst of wolves,' a phrase which the Midrash [b On Esther viii. 2, ed. Warsh. p. 120 b.] applies to the position of Israel amidst a hostile world, adding: How great is that Shepherd, Who delivers them, and vanquishes the wolves! Similarly, the admonition to 'be wise as serpents and harmless as doves' is reproduced in
