article15

§10 A Mission of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1–42)

10:1–4 / Jesus called together his twelve disciples and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. The distinction between exorcism and healing suggests that they are two different functions. This is the first mention of the twelve disciples in Matthew. He assumes they are known to the reader. That there are twelve disciples follows from the fact that they represent the new Israel: the twelve tribes of Israel find their counterpart in the twelve disciples. Interestingly, there were twelve members in the Qumran council as well (1QS 7.1ff.).

The disciples are here (v. 2) called apostles (the only occurrence of the word in Matthew). An apostle was one who was “sent on a mission” (Gk. apostellō). Beare holds that the title denoted a charismatic function rather than a specific office and that it was not limited to the Twelve (p. 240). In 1 Corinthians 15:5, 7, there is a distinction between the Twelve and “all the apostles.”

The names of the disciples are also listed here and in Mark 3:16–19, Luke 6:13–16, and Acts 1:13. The order varies somewhat, although Simon Peter heads each list and Judas Iscariot is always last (obviously, he is not listed in Acts). All lists have as the first four the two sets of brothers, Peter and Andrew, James and John. Matthew’s designation of Peter as first (v. 2) probably means first and foremost rather than first in the list. Since Mark wrote his Gospel as it came to him through Peter, it is understandable that this reference would be missing in his list (Mark 3:16). After listing James and John, Mark adds “to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17).

The second set of four names in each list includes: Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew. Bartholomew is a patronymic (Bar Talmai, son of Talmai; cf. 2 Sam. 13:37) rather than a name. He is commonly identified with Nathanael of John 1:46. The name Thomas means “twin,” as does the Greek didymos (Didymus; cf. John 11:16). Only in the Gospel of Matthew is Matthew thew called the tax collector. It reflects the author’s amazement that Jesus would call into his service one who had served in such a disreputable occupation.

In the final set of four only the infamous Judas Iscariot is well known. James son of Alphaeus is so named in order to distinguish him from James the brother of John. Thaddaeus (some manuscripts have Lebbaeus) is called “Judas son of James” in both Luke and Acts. It is conjectured that Judas was his original name but, after stigma was attached to the name by Judas Iscariot, he changed it to Thaddaeus (meaning “warmhearted”). The NIV’s Simon the Zealot interprets the Greek simōn ho kananaios (“Simon the Cananaean”), not in a geographical sense, but as derived from a Hebrew root meaning “zealous.” Whether this described his energetic character or referred to a former relationship with the Zealot party is uncertain. If Judas Iscariot means “Judas, man of Kerioth” he would be the only non-Galilean among the disciples. But “Kerioth” is of uncertain derivation.

It is noteworthy that only Peter, James, and John play any role in the Book of Acts. The disciples were all Jewish by ancestry and probably remained with that branch of Christianity after the church became increasingly Gentile in the second half of the first century. For that reason, our knowledge of their later lives comes primarily from tradition.

10:5–10 / The twelve apostles (apostoloi) are now sent out (apesteilen) to proclaim the message of the kingdom. They are not to go among the Gentiles or into any of the towns of Samaria. Galilee was surrounded by pagan lands on all sides except the south. In that direction lay Samaria, a country in which Israelites not deported to Babylon had intermarried with the occupation forces. The Twelve were commissioned to take the message to the lost sheep of Israel (v. 6). A common critical opinion is that this injunction could not have originated with Jesus but “emanated from those circles of the early church which were opposed to such an extension of the mission” (Beare, pp. 241–42). There was no need, so the argument goes, to warn the disciples against something that never would have been in their minds to do. The instructions of Jesus, however, are consistent with the New Testament emphasis that God has directed his redemptive efforts to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (cf. Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10). Rieu translates, “Do not stray into the pagan lands.” First of all, the message goes to God’s ancient people. Later, the disciples will be commissioned to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

In sending the Twelve to the lost sheep of the people of Israel Jesus was, according to some views, directing his disciples to the ‘am hā’āreṣ (“the people of the land,” those who did not follow all the ceremonial prescriptions of Judaism). It is more likely that the reference was to all of Israel. Like sheep that have wandered from the fold (cf. 9:36), they are spiritually scattered and in need of help. This regathering would be the dawn of the messianic age.

The message to be proclaimed is that the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. The long-awaited reign of God is about to break into human history (in concert with the realized eschatology of C. H. Dodd, Phillips translates, “has arrived”). That is why the sick will be healed, demons will be driven out, and the dead will be raised to life. A number of Greek manuscripts (mostly later) omit the reference to raising the dead, although the editors of the UBS text do not question its originality (cf. Metzger, TCGNT, pp. 27–28). Commentators uncomfortable with the apparent intention of the phrase (raise the dead) suggest that it should be taken metaphorically to mean the restoration to life of those who are dead in trespasses and sins.

The punctuation of the Greek text connects the two final clauses of verse 8 with what precedes. It is better to take them with the instructions that follow. They have freely received, so they are to give freely. There is no need to take along money or extra provisions, because a worker should receive those things from the people served. The NIV mention of belts or “girdles” (zōnai), refers to the ancient custom of tucking money into the waistband.

In addition to starting out without gold or silver or copper, the Twelve are not to take a knapsack for carrying food, an extra tunic, or sandals or a staff. In Mark’s account they are allowed to take a staff and wear sandals but not to take an extra garment (Mark 6:8–9). Luke prohibits a staff (Luke 9:3). These discrepancies have been explained in different ways. The simplest way to understand Matthew’s divergence from Mark is to take the “two” (or extra as the NIV has it) with sandals and staff as well as tunic. It would hardly be reasonable to understand Matthew as saying that the Twelve are to travel barefoot and without a staff for protection against snakes and wild animals. They are to travel unencumbered and allow their hearers to take care of their daily needs.

10:11–15 / Verses 11–15 instruct the Twelve regarding their entrance into towns. Upon arriving at a town or village they are to find lodging with a family willing to put them up and to stay there until their work is done. They are not to change lodging in search of more comfortable accommodations. Gundry holds that the worthy (v. 11) host would be a fellow disciple and that the charge is to stay, not where they find hospitality, but “where the proclamation of the Kingdom has already found a favorable reception” (p. 188).

As the disciples enter a house, they are to give the Semitic greeting (v. 12) “peace be with you.” If the family in the home is deserving (Lamsa, “trustworthy”) the greeting of peace is to rest on it; if not, it is to return to the disciples. In ancient days a pronouncement of this sort was thought to have an objective existence. It could be taken back as well as given. In Isaiah 55 God’s word is said to go out and accomplish that which he desires (Isa. 55:11). Whenever the disciples are refused hospitality, they are to leave and shake the dust off their feet. This gesture indicates they have nothing in common with those who reject the message and that the town or house is delivered to divine judgment (cf. Pilate washing his hands, Matt. 27:24). The act itself is a way of saying that one is standing on what must be considered “heathen” soil that must not be carried back to the Holy Land. So serious is the judgment that on Judgment Day God will show greater mercy to the people of the notoriously wicked Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19; cf. Luke 17:29; 2 Pet. 2:6) than to those who reject the disciples and their message.

10:16–20 / The Twelve were pictured in the previous paragraph as normally received in a fairly friendly manner. In the verses that follow there await rejection and persecution. Since verses 17–22 parallel closely the apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13:9–13, most commentators understand that Matthew is here looking beyond the immediate mission of the disciples to the future evangelistic ministry of the church. In Mark, suffering is a sign of the approaching end (13:29); in Matthew, it is an unavoidable part of missionary activity. There is no particular reason son that words uttered by Jesus must be restricted to a single setting. His sayings have manifold application and were undoubtedly repeated on many occasions.

The Twelve are sent out like sheep among wolves (v. 16). They are without defense against the ferocious attacks of their opponents. Therefore they must be as prudent (the LXX at Gen. 3:1 uses phronimos of Satan in the guise of a snake) as serpents and as harmless or innocent (akeraios means “unmixed,” thus here “with purity of intention”) as doves. Paul gives similar advice in Romans 16:19, “I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.”

The disciples are going to be opposed both by Jewish leaders (v. 17) and by gentile authorities (v. 18). Their “fellow men” (TCNT) will betray them to local councils, where they will be whipped (mastigoō is used in John 19:1 of the scourging of Jesus). In Jesus’ day the Roman government had delegated to the Sanhedrin (the Jewish high council) ultimate authority in legal affairs as well as in religious matters, as long as they did not encroach upon the authority of the Roman procurator (BAGD, p. 786). Deuteronomy 25:1–3 outlines the procedure for giving a guilty man up to forty lashes (see Acts 22:19; 2 Cor. 11:24). The disciples will also be dragged before governors and kings (v. 18). The immediate reference would be to Roman provincial governors and puppet kings like the Herodian princes (who were actually tetrarchs). However, God has a purpose in opposition such as this. It is to the end (Gk. eis) that the disciples will be witnesses to both Jew and Gentile (the antecedent of them in v. 18 is the group identified in v. 17). The disciples’ testimony is not “against” (AV) but to their opponents. Their purpose is primarily to convince the unconverted, not convict their adversaries (Green, p. 110).

Jesus instructs his disciples not to worry about what they are to say or how they are to speak when they are brought to trial. When the time comes they will be given (that is, God will tell them) what to say. The words that they speak will not be their own. It will be the Spirit of their Father (the Holy Spirit) who will speak through them. Unfortunately, this verse has provided too many preachers an excuse for not adequately preparing the Sunday sermon. Spurgeon, the nineteenth-century English Baptist, always put his sermon together on Saturday evening, but he had spent the entire week in reading and preparation.

10:21–25 / The prophet Micah spoke of the day of God’s visitation as a time when “a man’s enemies [will be] the members of his own household” (Mic. 7:6). In 1 Enoch 56:7 we read, “A man shall not know his brother, nor a son his father or his mother, till there be no number of the corpses through their slaughter.” Faithful witnesses will meet opposition not only from Jew and Gentile but also from members of their own families. Brother will betray brother, and children will have parents … put to death. Disciples of Christ will be the object of universal hatred because they bear the name Christian (cf. 1 Pet. 4:14). Some take the phrase because of me (lit., “on account of my name,” v. 22) to mean the use of Jesus’ name (as in Matt. 7:22) for exorcisms and healings. Those who hold out in the face of persecution until the coming of the Son of Man will be saved. Obviously, they are not spared persecution; rather, they are shielded against spiritual harm and delivered into the coming kingdom. Holding out to the end (v. 22) does not mean remaining in those towns where they are being persecuted. Being wise as serpents (v. 16) means moving on to other villages. There is no particular virtue in unnecessary martyrdom.

Verse 23 is difficult. A straightforward reading of the text indicates that before the Twelve finish their mission to the towns of Israel the Son of Man will come. Albert Schweitzer based his entire scheme of thoroughgoing eschatology on this verse. He held that Jesus thought that the mission of the Twelve would bring in the kingdom. He was disappointed when it did not turn out that way. Later Jesus attempted to bring in the kingdom by his own vicarious suffering. That was his final disappointment (Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, pp. 358–63). Others have suggested that verse 23b originated at a later period and is an argument against the church’s mission to non-Jews, on the grounds of an imminent Parousia. Barclay explains it by suggesting that Matthew, who writes at a time later than Mark, reads into a promise of the coming of the kingdom (cf. Mark 9:1) a promise of the second coming of Christ (vol. 1, p. 382). Others hold that the “coming” is a coming of judgment on Israel.

One thing we do know is that by the time Matthew wrote, the mission of the Twelve was history and the Parousia had not taken place. This points to a different understanding of what it means for the Son of Man to come. Gundry holds that in writing verse 23 Matthew “implies a continuing mission to Israel alongside the mission to Gentiles” (p. 194). This explanation involves considerable subtlety. Tasker is of the opinion that the verse is best understood “with reference to the coming of the Son of Man in triumph after His resurrection” (p. 108). Unless Matthew is putting words that reflect a later situation into the mouth of Jesus, or Jesus was simply mistaken (as Schweitzer holds), this explanation is the most satisfactory.

Verses 24–25 argue that followers of Christ should not be surprised if they receive the same treatment as their teacher and master. If the head of the family is called Beelzebub (or Beelzebul, “the prince of demons,” 12:24; cf. 9:34), how much more will be slandered those of his household. The exact origin of the name Beelzebub is uncertain, although many commentators connect it in some way with Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2, 6). The Greek oikodespotēs (“head of the house”) is a pun on the name Beelzebub.

10:26–31 / Three times in this paragraph Jesus counsels his disciples against fear. First, they are not to be afraid of people (v. 26). The day is coming when everything that has been hidden from public scrutiny will be openly displayed. The secret plans will be known to all. As far as the disciples’ ministry is concerned, that time is now. What Jesus has told them in comparative privacy they are to proclaim publicly. Those things they have learned in personal conversation must now be announced to the whole world. Roofs regularly functioned as platforms for important public announcements. It is often noted that Jesus’ words about the disclosure of hidden things are used by Luke to warn against hypocrisy (Luke 12:1–3), whereas in Matthew they call for a public declaration of the message the disciples have learned in private. The proverbial nature of the statements of Jesus makes them applicable to many situations.

Second, the disciples are not to fear those who may kill the body but are powerless to kill the soul (v. 28). Rather, they should fear God, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (geenna, the Valley of Hinnom, a ravine south of Jerusalem whose fires symbolized the punishment of the wicked). Beare notes that among the Greeks it was commonly held that the soul was dissolved upon the death of the body (p. 247). Gundry adds, “Despite much current opinion to the contrary, Jews as well as Greeks regarded physical death as separation of the soul from the body” (p. 197). In context the soul is a person’s true self. Opponents may put the messengers of God to death, but they are unable to separate them from the source of true life. Senior writes, “Paralyzing fear should not be an ingredient of Christian ministry” (p. 109). Only God can kill the soul. If there is to be fear, let it be fear of God.

The prospect of martyrdom is anything but pleasant. But throughout the New Testament it is taught that God’s faithful people will suffer (cf. John 15:18–21; 2 Tim. 3:12). Scripture has never painted a chimerical picture of a sentimental deity. So, don’t be afraid (the third reference, v. 31) of whatever could happen. Sparrows are seemingly insignificant and inexpensive, but not one of them will die (fall to the ground) apart from the will of your Father, and you are worth more than many sparrows (Semitic literature often uses “many” to mean “all”). In fact, God “takes every hair of your head into his reckoning” (Knox). The assarion (penny) was a Roman copper coin worth one sixteenth of a denarius (a day’s wages for a manual worker). Sparrows were the least expensive living things sold in the market and were used for food by the poor; a penny would buy two sparrows. In Luke’s account (12:6), five sparrows go for two cents—perhaps the fifth is thrown in for a bargain.

Some have suggested that the Greek for fall (to the ground) translates an Aramaic word meaning “to light or land upon” (e.g., Barclay, vol. 1, p. 389). But this removes the idea of martyrdom that is central to the section. Others note that the Greek of verse 29 says “without your Father”—it does not have the additional word “knowledge” (TCNT), “permission” (Beck), or “consent” (GNB). If we are not to complete the phrase in this way, the idea would be that even in death sparrows and faithful witnesses are not deprived of the presence of God. As the well-known hymn has it, “Be not dismayed whate’re betide; God will take care of you.”

10:32–33 / Stendahl gives the gist of this next paragraph as “the only thing worth fearing is not to be found on Jesus’ side by failure to confess him before men” (p. 783). Those who acknowledge before men that they belong to Jesus will be openly acknowledged by him before God. Before men in this context probably means “in earthly courts of law,” and before my Father means “in the heavenly court where God sits as the ultimate Judge.” To Eli, God said, “Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained” (1 Sam. 2:30). Verse 33 adds the obvious corollary—whoever disowns Jesus will be rejected by him in the final reckoning. At the final judgment Jesus will speak for or against a person on the basis of whether that person has been a fearless advocate or a silent witness. One’s involvement in spreading the message of the kingdom has eternal consequences.

10:34–39 / The prevailing Jewish opinion was that when Messiah came he would usher in a time of universal peace. Not so, says Jesus. I have come, but not to bring peace to the earth. I bring not peace but a sword. In this context the sword symbolizes that which divides a family against itself. Jesus’ statement that he came to bring strife is the normal Semitic use of consequences as though they were intentions. Amos asks, “When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?” (Amos 3:6).

Malachi tells of the coming day of the Lord when the prophet Elijah will appear and “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Mal. 4:6). For now, however, the lament of Micah over the moral breakdown of Israel is more to the point (Mic. 7:6): a man turns against his father and a daughter against her mother. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household (v. 36). Especially in gentile families, where every member played some role in the local cult, would the gospel bring division. The challenge of total commitment has always brought division, even within the bonds of a family relationship.

It follows that to love members of one’s own family more than God disqualifies a person for discipleship. Luke, who perhaps translates literally from an Aramaic source, has it that one must “hate” his own family in order to become a disciple of Jesus (Luke 14:26). The issue is one of priorities: our commitment to Christ must be greater than to anyone else. Jesus is not counseling his followers to ride roughshod over family affection or responsibility. The point is that when a person pledges solidarity with Christ and his mission, nothing—not even the love of a family member (understood as unsympathetic to the Christian faith)—must be allowed to stand in the way.

If placing family before Christ disqualifies a person for discipleship, so also does putting self in the same position. To be worthy of discipleship a person must take his cross and follow (v. 38) in the path of the Master. To “take up the cross” means to consider oneself already sentenced and on the way to execution. It is complete self-denial. Whether this means bearing the shame and loneliness of being a social outcast or actually being ready to suffer a martyr’s death is incidental. Some have found incongruity in the fact that it is not until chapter 16 (vv. 21–23) that Jesus first predicts his crucifixion. This method of execution was well known in Palestine, and the image would have been easily understood by Jesus’ disciples.

Verse 39 is the most frequently recorded saying of Jesus in the New Testament. It is found six times in the Gospels (cf. Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33; John 12:25). If a person seeks to preserve his own life he will lose it, but if for the sake of Christ he lets it go he will find it. That self-seeking is self-defeating (Filson, p. 134) is the central paradox of Christian living. In the context of cross-bearing it would appear that “gaining one’s life” may refer to escaping martyrdom by denying the faith. It has been historically true that in times of persecution some professing Christians have come to terms with the world by renouncing their faith. Such action forfeits the true life of the soul. On the other hand, willingly to accept martyrdom for Christ’s sake is to gain the higher life (life in v. 39 is used in a double sense—physical, and true or spiritual). The saying of Jesus is also true in a more general sense; to pursue selfish interests is to lose out on what life is all about, whereas to devote oneself to Christ brings deep and lasting satisfaction.

10:40–42 / At the end of the discourse Matthew once again emphasizes the mission setting. Jesus instructed the Twelve to stay in homes and towns where they were welcomed in verses 11–14. Now he adds that those who extend hospitality to the itinerant evangelists actually entertain both Jesus and the Father. Later in a parable dealing with final judgment, Jesus will teach that to minister to the needs of the hungry and oppressed is to minister to God himself (25:31–40). In the context of persecution (v. 23), hospitality could involve harboring at considerable risk those who are wanted by the authorities. Therefore, to provide shelter for a prophet in the role of a messenger of God is to share in the prophet’s reward (that is, the reward that a prophet receives; cf. 5:12; 6:1).

Jesus here refers to his disciples in three ways: they are prophets, righteous men, little ones. The righteous (dikaios) man is a believer whose life is marked by righteous conduct. Hill’s suggestion that this designation may refer to a group of teachers within the church (p. 196) assumes that the verse originated at a later period. Gundry holds that the little ones are disciples who do not hold positions of leadership in the church (p. 203).

It is often observed that Matthew gives no account of the mission journey itself (both Mark and Luke record the return of the Twelve, Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10). The normal critical explanation is that for Matthew the “disciples” symbolize Christian believers of his own time, and the mission charge is a set of instructions for the outreach of the church in the later part of the first century. Nothing is said about the completion of the missionary journey because it is still under way and will be completed only when the Son of Man returns (cf. Beare, p. 252).