Matthew Chapter 10 verse 9 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 9, 10a. - Parallel passages: Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3 (the twelve); 10:4 (the seventy); cf. also our Lord's reference in Luke 22:35 to the mission of the twelve. Provide; get you (Revised Version, Authorized Version margin). There is no connotation of foresight in the word itself, but only of acquisition. Observe that the apostles are not forbidden to take what they already have. Lightfoot, 'Hor. Hebr.,' shows that travellers ordinarily took with them a staff, a purse, shoes, a wallet, and sometimes a book of the Law. Neither gold, nor silver, nor brass. The brass would be the copper coinage of the Herods (examples are figured in Smith's 'Dict. of Bible,' 2. p. 413), which alone might be struck by them; or some of the Greek imperial coins, especially those struck at Antioch. The silver, either Greek imperial tetradrachms or Roman denarii of a quarter their weight, didrachms having fallen into disuse; only certain free cities were allowed to coin silver. The gold, as Palestine was a subject province, must have been coined at Rome, for she retained the coining of gold entirely in her own hands (cf. Madden's 'Coins of the Jews,' pp. 107, 290, ft., edit. 1881; and It. S. Peele, in Smith's 'Dict. of Bible,' s.vv. "Money," "Stater;" further, see ver. 29). In your purses; literally, girdles, which in the East often serve as purses. This prohibition may have been suggested by the last words of ver. 8, but can hardly refer to them. It seems to regard the journey only (cf. parallel passages). Nor scrip; no wallet (Revised Version). At the present time, "all shepherds have them, and they are the farmer's universal vade-mecum. They are merely the skins of kids stripped off whole, and tanned by a very simple process" (Thomson's 'Land and the Book,' p. 345, edit. 1887, where a picture of one is given). But they might be made even of fish-skin (Mishna, 'Kelim,' 24:11). Because of 1 Samuel 17:40, an haggada says that David's money was stamped with a staff and wallet on one side, and a tower on the other ('B'resh..R.,' § 39, in Levy, s.v. תרמיל). For your journey. The clause is to be joined with "scrip" only. Neither two coats. A second for sabbaths and festivals. For the rabbinic rule insisted upon a different coat for these days from that ordinarily worn. To the objection of poor disciples, that they had but one garment for sabbath and week-day alike, R. Samlai said that they must at least change the way in which they wore it (Talm. Jeremiah. 'Pea.,' 8:7 [S], in Hamburger, 'Realencycl.,' 2. p. 642. Neither shoes. The parallel passage, Mark 6:9, has. "but to go shod with sandals" (Revised Version). This is, perhaps, a case of verbal inaccuracy, but as it is impossible to suppose that our Lord can have wished his disciples to go without the ordinary protection to the feet, or that the author of this Gospel, accustomed, on any theory, to Eastern modes of life, can have intended to credit him with such a wish, some other explanation of the verbal discrepancy must be looked for. The true explanation is probably this - The rabbis insisted so strongly on a man never appearing barefooted: "Let a man sell the beams of his house and buy shoes for his feet" (Talm. Bab., 'Sabb.,' 129a), that it is very possible that a second pair was often carried in ease of need. it is this that our Lord forbids. On the other hand, Jews did not carry one pair for sabbath and another for week-days (Talm. Jeremiah, 'Sabb.,' 6:2). Some commentators escape the difficulty by distinguishing between "shoes" and "sandals;" but it is very doubtful if the usage of the words is always so exact that one term excludes the other. Nor yet staves; nor staff (Revised Version). The plural, both here (Stephen) and in Luke 9:3 (Received Text), is a clumsy attempt to harmonize with Mark 6.8, where our Lord bids the twelve take nothing "save a staff only." The difference between the two reports of our Lord's words has been magnified by many commentators into a contradiction. But this is not the true state of the case. For it would be so extraordinary and apparently so useless an order to forbid their having a staff, that it is hard to suppose this to have been the meaning of his words as reported here. His thought in vers. 9, 10 is rather that they were to make no preparation, for their wants should be supplied, and that even if they had not a staff they were not to take the trouble to procure one. St. Mark's account only so far differs that he assumes that they will st least have a staff already. Observe, however, that no stress can be placed on the difference of the verbs here and in Mark, for in this respect Mark and Luke agree. Verses 10b. - For the workman; labourer (Revised Version); thus connecting the utterance closely with Matthew 9:37, 38. Is worthy of his meat. The disciples may therefore expect that it will be provided for them by those to whom they minister (Luke 10:7, of the seventy), and indirectly by the Master whom they serve (Matthew 9:38). Meat; food (Revised Version). In all but most highly organized systems of society, this is an important (frequently the most important) part of the day labourer's wages. Hence not unnaturally "wages" is found in the form of the sayings given by St. Luke (Luke 10:7) and St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18). Probably our Lord's words became a current proverb in Christian circles, the original word "food" being modified to suit the more general circumstances of life. Clem. Romans, § 31, recalls the Matthaean form, "The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness." Epiphanius gives a kind of confla-tion, containing the further thought that if the workman receives his food he must be content: "The workman is worthy of his hire, and sufficient to him that works is his food." Resch ('Agrapha,' pp. 97, 140) connects this form of the saying with the practice of giving only food to the travelling "apostles" and prophets of the sub-apostolic age ('Did.,' § 11.). Professor Marshall (Expositor, IV. 2:76) suggests that if our Lord's original word was צֵידָה, it would explain the origin of both Matthew and Luke; but it seems very doubtful it' it really ever means "wages." Two patristic remarks are worth quoting: the first from Origen ('Cram. Cat.'), "In saying τροφήν, ('food') he forbade τρυφήν ('luxury');" the second from St. Gregory the Great (in Ford), "Priests ought to consider how criminal and punishable a thing it is to receive the fruit of labour, without labour."

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(9) Neither gold, nor silver.--"Silver" alone is named in St. Luke; brass--i.e., bronze or copper coinage--in St. Mark. St. Matthew's report includes all the three forms of the money then in circulation. The tense of the word rendered "provide" requires notice. It implies that if they had money, they might take it, but they were not to "get" or "provide" it as a condition of their journey, still less to delay till they had got it.In your purses.--Literally, in your girdles--the twisted folds of which were, and are, habitually used in the East instead of the "purse" of the West.