Luke 9:3-5

2 d. Luke 9:3-5. Their Instructions. “ And He said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. 4. And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide and thence depart. 5. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. ”

Ver. 3 contains instructions for their setting out; Luke 9:4, instructions respecting their arrival and stay; Luke 9:5, instructions for leaving each place.

Ver. 3. The feeling of confidence is the key to the injunctions of this verse: “Make no preparations, such as are ordinarily made on the eve of a journey; set out just as you are. God will provide for all your wants.” The reply of the apostles, Luke 22:35, proves that this promise was not unfulfilled. Μηδέν, nothing, is a general negative, to which the subsequent μήτε, neither...nor...are subordinate. Mark, who commences with a simple μή, naturally continues with the negative μηδέ, nor further. Each writer, though expressing the same idea as the other, has his own particular way of doing it. Luke says, neither staff, or, according to another reading, neither staves; Matthew is like Luke; Mark, on the contrary, save one staff only. The contradiction in terms could not be greater, yet the agreement in idea is perfect. For as far as the sentiment is concerned which Jesus wishes to express, it is all one to say, “nothing, not even a staff” (Matthew and Luke), or, “nothing, except it be simply (or at most) a staff” (Mark). Ebrard makes the acute observation, that in Aramaean Jesus probably said, כִּי אִםמַטֶּה, for if...a staff, an elliptical form also much used in Hebrew, and which may be filled up in two ways: For if you take a staff, this of itself is quite sufficient (Mark); or, this of itself is too much (Matthew and Luke). This saying of Jesus might therefore be reproduced in Greek either in one way or the other. But in no case could these two opposite forms be explained on the hypothesis of a common written Greek source. Bleek, who prefers the expression given in Matthew and Luke, does not even attempt to explain how that in Mark could have originated.

If we read staves, according to a various reading found in Luke and Matthew, the plural must naturally be applied to the two apostles travelling together.

Luke says, Do not have each (ἀνά, distributive) two coats, that is to say, each a change of coat, beyond what you wear. As they were not to have a travelling cloak (πήρα), they must have worn the second coat on their person; and it is this idea, implied by Luke, that is exactly expressed by Mark, “ neither put on two coats. ” The infinitive μὴ ἔχειν depends on εἶπε : “He said to them...not to have...”

As an unanswerable proof of an opposite tendency in Matthew and Luke, it is usual to cite the omission in this passage of the prohibition with which in Matthew this discourse commences (Luke 10:5): “ Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ” But even in Matthew this prohibition is not absolute (rather) nor permanent (Matthew 28:19, “Go and teach all nations ”). It was therefore a restriction temporarily imposed upon the disciples, in consideration of the privilege accorded to the Jewish nation of being the cradle of the work of the Messiah. With some exceptions, for which there were urgent reasons, Jesus Himself was generally governed by this rule. He says, indeed, in reference to His earthly ministry: “ I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ” (Matthew 15:24); nevertheless, He is not ignorant that it is His mission to seek and to save all that which is lost, and consequently the heathen. He affirms it in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, no less than in that of Luke. Paul himself does homage to this divine fidelity, when he recalls the fact that Jesus, during His earthly life, consented to become a minister of the circumcision (Romans 15:8). But, 1. What reason could Luke have, in the circle for which he was writing, to refer to this restriction temporarily imposed upon the Twelve for the purpose of this particular mission? 2. Mark, no less than Luke, omits these words in the account he gives of this discourse, but the harmony of his leaning with that of the first evangelist is not suspected. 3. This last circumstance makes it all but certain that this detail had already been omitted in the sources whence these two evangelists drew their narratives, and must completely exculpate Luke from all anti-Jewish prejudice in his reproduction of this discourse.