The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 412

',,u,n). For your journey. The clause is to of his meat. The disciples may therefore be joined mth "scrip" only. Neither two expect that it will be provided for them by ooate. A second for s11bbaths and festivals. those to whom they minister (Luke x. 7, of For the rabbinic rule insisted upon a dif- the seventy), and indirectly by the Master ferent coat for these de.ye from that ordinarily whom they serve (eh. ix. 38). Meat; food worn. To the objection of poor disciples, (Revised Version). In all but most highly that the'I' had but one garment for sabbath organized systems of society, this is an im- o.nd weck-dav alike, R. Samlai said that portant (frequently the most important) part they must at ieMt eh1mge the way in which of the day labourer's wages. Hence not un- they wore it (Talm. Jer., 'Pea.,' viii. 7 [8), naturally "wages" is found in the form of in Hamburger, 'Realencycl.,' ii. p. 642). the sayings given by St. Luke (x. 7) and St. Neither shoes. The parallel passage, Mark Paul (1 Tim. v. 18). Probably our Lord's 'l'i. 9, has. "but t-0 go shod with sandals " words became e. current proverb in Christian (Re'l'ised Version). This is, perhaps, a case circles, the original word " food " being of verbal inaccuracy, but as it is impossible modified to suit the more general circum- to suppose that our Lord can have wished stances of life. Clem. Rom., § 34, recalls liis <lisciples to go without the ordinary pro- the Matthlllan form, " The good workman tection to the feet, or that the author of this receiveth the bread of his work with bold- Gospel, accustomed, on any theory, to Eastern ness.'' Epiphe.nius gives a kind of confla- modes of life, can have intended to credit tion, containing the further thought that if him with such n wish, some other explana- the workman receives hia food he must be tion of the verbal disr.repancy must be content: "The workman is worthy of his looked for. The true explanation ial' pro- hire, and sufficient to him that wo1·ks is bably this-The rabbis insisted so strongly his food." Resch (' Agrapha,' pp. 97, 140) on a man ne'l'er appearing barefooted: "Let connects this form of the saying with a man sell the beams of his house and buy the practice of giving only food to the shoes for his feet" (Te.Im. Bab., • Sabb.,' travelling "apostles" and prophets of the •129a), that it is very possible that a sub-apostolic age (' Did.,' § xi.). Professor ; second pair was often carried in case of Marshall (&positor, IV. ii. 76) suggests need. It is this that our Lord forbids. On that if our Lord's original word was ;i~•'.K, the other hand, Jews did not carry one pair it would explain the origin of both Matthew for sabbath and another for week-days (To.Im. and Luke ; but it seems very doubtful if it Jcr., 'Sabb.,' vi. 2). Some commentators really ever means " wages." Two patristic escape the difficulty by distinguishing be- remarks are worth q noting: the first from •tween "shoes" and "sandals ; " but it is Ori gen (' Cram. Cat.'), "In saying -rpo<f,fw . very doubtful if the usage of the worJs is ('food') he forbade -rpv<f,~v ('luxury') ; " the al ways so exact that one term excludes the second from St. Gregory the Great (in Ford), other. Nor yet staves; Mr staff (Revised "Priests ought to consider how criminal and Version). The plural, both here (Stephen) punishable a thing it is to receive the fruit and in Luke ix. 3 (Received Text), is a of labour, without labour." clumsy attempt to harmonize with Mark vi.8, Ver. 11.-Parallel passages: Mark vi. 10; where our Lord bids the twelve take nothing Luke ix. 4 (the twelve); x. 5-8(tbe seventy), "save a staff only." The difference between Matthew alone mentions the comm11.nd to the two reports of our Lord's words has inquire who is worthy. And into whatsoever been magnified by many commentators into oity or town; mllage (Revised Version); cf. a contradiction. But this is not the true eh. ix. 35, note. Ye Bh4ll enter, inquire; state of the case, For it would be so extra- ,earch out (Revised Version). Much more ordinary and apparently so useless an order is implied tho.n. merely asking some chanoe to forbid their having a staff, that it is hard passer-by ( of. eh. ii. 8). Who in it is worthy; to suppose this to have been the meaning i.e. equivalent by mor11.l rate (11£,os)-in this of his words as reported here. His thought case to the privilege of your lodging with in vers. 9, 10 is rather that they were to him; elsewhere to the offer of peace (ver. make no preparation, for their wants should 13), to the fovour of an invitation (eh. xxii. be supplied, and that even if they had not 8), to walking with Christ clothed in white a staff they were not to take the trou hie to (Rev. iii. 4), to punishment (Rev. xvi. 6). procure one. St. Mark's account only so Aud there abide till ye go thenoe ; go forth far differs that he assumes that they will (Revised Version) ; i.e. finally (ver. 14). The et least have a staff already. Observe, how- object of this command, which was reckoned ever, tliat no stress can be placed on the so important as to be recorded in all three difference of the verbs here and in Mark, parallel passages ( vide supra), is to prevent for in this respect Mark and Luke agree. partly favouritism and rivalry, partly waste Vere. IOb.-For the wo:'.kman; labourer of time. For "when a stranger arrives in a (Revised Version); thusconnectingtheutter- village or an encampment, the neighbours, auce closely with eh. ix. 37, 38. II worthf one after another, must invilo him &o ea$ OH, L 1--42,] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. 409