In accordance with this, singleness of purpose and an entire self-denial, which should lead them not to make provision for the flesh,' but as labourers to be content with daily food, were the further injunctions laid on them. Before entering into a city, they were to make inquiry, literally to search out,' who in it was worthy,' and of them to ask hospitality; not seeking during their stay a change for the gratification of vanity or for self-indulgence. If the report on which they had made choice of a host proved true, then the Peace with thee!' with which they had entered their temporary home, would become a reality. Christ would make it such. As He had given them power and authority,' so He would honour' the draft on Him, in acknowledgment of hospitable reception, which the Apostles' Peace with thee!' implied.
But even if the house should prove unworthy, the Lord would none the less own the words of His messengers and make them real; only, in such case the peace would return to them who had spoken it. Yet another case was possible. The house to which their inquiries had led them, or the city into which they had entered, might refuse to receive them, because they came as Christ's ambassadors. Greater, indeed, would be their guilt than that of the cities of the plain, since these had not known the character of the heavenly guests to whom they refused reception; and more terrible would be their future punishment. So Christ would vindicate their authority as well as His own, and show the reality of their commission: on the one hand, by making their Word of Peace a reality to those who had proved worthy;' and, on the other, by punishment if their message was refused. Lastly, in their present Mission they were not to touch either Gentile or Samaritan territory. The direction - so different in spirit from what Jesus Himself had previously said and done, and from their own later commission - was, of course, only for the present necessity.' [3036] For the present they were neither prepared nor fitted to go beyond the circuit indicated. It would have been a fatal anticipation of their inner and outer history to have attempted this, and it would have defeated the object of our Lord of disarming prejudices when making a final appeal to the Jews of Galilee.
Even these considerations lead us to expect a strictly Jewish cast in this Discourse to the Disciples. The command to abstain from any religious fellowship with Gentiles and Samaritans was in temporary accommodation to the prejudices of His disciples and of the Jews. And the distinction between the way of the Gentiles' and any city of the Samaritans' is the more significant, when we bear in mind that even the dust of a heathen road was regarded as defiling, [3037] while the houses, springs, roads, and certain food of the Samaritans were declared clean. [3038] At the same time, religiously and as regarded fellowship, the Samaritans were placed on the same footing with Gentiles. [3039] Nor would the injunction, to impart their message freely, sound strange in Jewish ears. It was, in fact, what the Rabbis themselves most earnestly enjoined in regard to the teaching of the Law and traditions, however different their practice may have been. [3040] Indeed, the very argument, that they were to impart freely, because they had received freely, is employed by the Rabbis, and derived from the language and example of Moses in Deut. iv. 5. [3041] [3042] Again, the directions about not taking staff, shoes, nor money-purse, exactly correspond to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-precincts with staff, shoes [3043] (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle. [3044] The symbolic [3045] reasons underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably the same: to avoid even the appearance of being engaged on other business, when the whole being should be absorbed in the service of the Lord. At any rate, it would convey to the disciples the idea, that they were to consider themselves as if entering the Temple-precincts, thus carrying out the principle of Christ's first thought in the Temple: Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?' [3046] Nor could they be in doubt what severity of final punishment a doom heavier than that of Sodom and Gomorrah would imply, since, according to early tradition, their inhabitants were to have no part in the world to come. [3047] And most impressive to a Jewish mind would be the symbolic injunction, to shake off the dust of their feet for a testimony against such a house or city. The expression, no doubt, indicated that the ban of the Lord was resting on it, and the symbolic act would, as it were, be the solemn pronouncing that nought of the cursed thing' clave to them. [3048] [3049] In this sense, anything that clave to a person was metaphorically called the dust,' as for example, the dust of an evil tongue,' [3050] the dust of usury,' as, on the other hand, to dust to idolatry' meant to cleave to it. [3051] Even the injunction not to change the dwelling, where one had been received, was in accordance with Jewish views, the example of Abraham being quoted, who [3052] returned to the place where his tent had been at the beginning.' [3053] [3054]