The problem in answering this
“contradiction” given on the internet is that while Mark says,
“Yes,” both Matthew and Luke say, “No.” The critic who
came up with this problem could very well have added “sandals”
since there is a similar disagreement as to whether they were
allowed.
I must admit that I missed this
discrepancy when reading these accounts since it is almost lost in
the welter of agreement between the rest of the details in these
parallel passages. But apparently this problem area is known to both
skeptics and Bible scholars alike. Blomberg calls it “a famous
so-called contradiction,” and Lane labels it “a well-known
problem of harmony.” In any case, as Ellis concludes, the “minor
disagreements...do not affect the meaning,” and France says, “Most
readers...do not find it easy to get excited about this 'gospel
discrepancy'...whether the tradition actually forbade the disciples
to carry a staff or not, the thrust of the passage is hardly
affected.”
So before we get into some proposals
for making sense out of the difference, it is best to first review
the overall meaning behind the restrictions given by Jesus to
the disciples when sending them out two-by-two on their mission. This
purpose is expressed well by commentators, who are in general
agreement on this point:
Hill: “The purpose of all these
prohibitions is not to advance ascetic poverty, but to ensure that
apostles were unencumbered in their travelling mission and encouraged
to trust in God's providence.”
Blomberg: “At any rate, all accounts
agree on Jesus' central theme of the simplicity, austerity, and
urgency of the mission. The point of Jesus' strictness is not to
leave the disciples deprived and defenseless but dependent on others
for their nourishment...in every area of life.”
Anderson: “Only by complying with
the command to renounce all accoutrements and material resources,
except the barest minimum, could the missionaries of Jesus intimate
their abandonment of human or worldly power and their dependence upon
their Lord.”
Geldenhuys: “The task assigned to
them is so important and urgent that they have to lose no time by
first making all kinds of preparation for the journey – they have
to go just as they are and trust to God that He will provide whatever
is needful while they are engaged in accomplishing their task.”
Greydanus: The restrictions boil down
to “no extra goods, aids...to make provision for the future.”
France: “The essence of this
instruction is to travel light by not making special provision for
their material needs while on a mission; here is an opportunity to
exercise the practical trust in God's provision which they have been
taught in [Matthew] 6:25-33.”
The many attempts to reconcile these
parallel accounts fall into three general categories, some of which
are dependent on answering the historical question of which Gospel
was written first. And on that point, there is quite a division of
opinion.
Possible Reasons for Mark's
Departure
One way to explain
the differences is to assume that Mark has purposely included details
in his narrative added for thematic reasons, which, however, may
depart somewhat from the more historically accurate accounts of
Matthew and Luke. In possibly doing so, we should not immediately
jump to labeling Mark as a liar since we need to always keep in mind
that there were always several reasons behind each Evangelist's book
in addition to just conveying a series of historical facts. So let us
start with some of the possible theological reasons behind the
differences between the Gospel accounts and then move on to other
proposed explanations.
Mark's
Parallels with the Exodus story
“Mk.
6:8f shows a striking similarity to Ex. 12:11 where the Israelites on
the eve of the Exodus are commanded to eat the Passover in haste,
'your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your
hand. As Israel in the wilderness was nourished by the provision of
God so the disciples are to be sustained by God's provision.”
(Lane)
Marcus similarly says that “the Exodus typology that pervades this
section of the Gospel” includes a staff (as of Moses and of the
Israelites in Exodus 12:11; Num. 17), no bread (manna given by God
instead), no money in the belt (loins girded with belt instead, Exod.
12:11), sandals (Exod. 12:11; Deut. 29:15); and single tunic only (as
in Deut. 8:4; 29:5). Some of these, of course are also found in
Matthew and Luke, but not all.
Marcus concludes: “If these Exodus parallels are deliberate – and
the fact that Mark is responsible for some of them suggests that they
are – Mark probably wishes to imply that the disciples' missionary
journey will be a participation in the new exodus inaugurated by
Jesus.”
Mark's
Parallel with II Kings 4
“Schurmann
suggests that Mark was allowing the disciples to carry a staff as a
sign of their master's authority like Gehazi (2 Ki. 4:29), and that
Luke failed to appreciate the allusion. But in Gehazi's case it was
the master's staff that was used, not the disciple's...” (Marshall)
Theological
Reason for the Restrictions in Matthew and Luke
In commenting on Matthew's version, Hill says, “The denial of
sandals and a staff (cf. Luke 9:3; 10:4) to travelling men seems very
strange. In allowing both (6. 8,9) Mark is probably original at this
point... Schniewind suggests that the Matthean injunction means that
apostles are to appear to men with the same attire as before God;
those who fasted and prayed did so without a staff and barefoot.”
Polemics
Against Current Church Practices
Anderson: Mark's more permissive allowance of sandals and staff was
“an intentional blow at the fanaticism that thinks of faith itself
as a magical protection against all ills.”
Historical
Reasons for the Differences
Another factor to keep in mind, although liberal commentators often
make too much of it, is that the Evangelists always kept the current
needs of their immediate audience in mind. They thus provided lessons
pertinent to those needs which could have colored their historical
accounts. Thus, we have the following comments:
Mann, assuming that Mark's account was the most recent of the
Synoptics, expresses the opinion that Mark was writing in more
perilous times than the other Evangelists were, and thus the
mitigation for the benefit of his readers.
In this, Schweizer agrees: “The permission to take a staff and wear
sandals could only have been added to the more primitive tradition
then within a Church that could not picture a missionary going
barefoot or without a staff.”
Marshall agrees that this is the most probably explanation, i.e.,
that Matthew and Luke give “the original, rigorous instructions of
Jesus for a brief mission, whereas in Mk. we have an adaptation of
the demands to fit in with the different, more harsh conditions of
later missions over a wider area.”
Confusion
Between Similar Words
Geldenhuys
says that the “common explanation...is that Mark's ei
me
('save, except') and Luke's mete
('neither') represent two very similar Aramaic words – 'ella
and wela
respectively – which might have been confused with one another;
though scholars differ as to which was more probably mistaken for the
other.”
Marshall responds to this explanation by saying that “this is
possible in terms of the history of the tradition behind Mk. and Q
[one of the hypothetical sources behind the Gospels], but it is not
perhaps very likely.”
Definition
of “Staff” and “Shoes”
Lane
says that “Powell's...conclusion is that the staff permitted in
Mark is the walking stick or shepherd's crook which became the symbol
of office, while the rod prohibited by Matthew and Luke was a
shepherd's club designed for protection.”
Also,
Matthew and Luke use a different Greek word for “shoes” than Mark
does, which could explain one difference, but France demonstrates
that the two words are really synonymous.
Different Verbs
Gendenuys: “Taken together with Mark vi. 8, the meaning here [i.e.
Luke 9:3] might be 'no additional staff'.” But it is unlikely that
anyone would carry two staffs along for a trip. So the following
explanation may be the preferred one:
France says: “All the items listed are in Matthew objects of the
verb 'Do not get' (ktaomai),” which does not naturally refer
to what they are to carry but rather to fund-raising and acquiring
special equipment for the journey. If they are not to go barefoot,
basic clothing and equipment are assumed; it is additional provision
which is forbidden.” However, since Luke and Mark use the same
verb, France concludes that “perhaps Matthew might have in mind
acquiring a new one to take instead of the old.”
The Conflation Theory
“The
generally accepted explanation...is that there were two accounts of
the sending out of disciples on mission...Luke has utilized these
separately in chs. 9 and 10 respectively (but with some assimilation
between them), but Matthew has conflated his two sources.”
(Marshall)
“If
Matthew's account is composite, this verse may have originally
applied to the sending of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1-12), which
likely included the Twelve, at which time Jesus' instructions
differed slightly from those he gave just to the Twelve. That
[Matthew] 9:37-38 and 10:10b find their only parallels in Luke 10:2
and 7b may support this reconstruction.” (Blomberg)
Hendricksen also explains this 'combination' view: “Jesus, so it is
argued, did not at this time deliver the entire address [Matthew
10:5-42]. On the contrary, when, sometime after the resurrection,
persecution began to raise its head the Gospel composer combined an
early address with some of his later sayings...” He presents
several arguments pro and con regarding this theory, but they are
mainly centered on verses following 10:10.
Miscellaneous
Explanations
Ellis asks, “Does the command to 'take nothing' [in Matthew and
Luke] signify a special protection from want and evil during the
period of Jesus' ministry (Conzelmann), or does it merely reflect a
missionary custom (Monson) or strategy (Daube)? Perhaps both are
true.”
Posts
