DID JESUS LET THE DISCIPLES TAKE A STAFF? (MATTHEW 10:10; MARK 6:8; LUKE 9:3)

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.”