6:6-13
THE TWELVE COMMISSIONED
“And he went round about the villages teaching. And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits; and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse; but to go shod with sandals: and, said he, put not on two coats. And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart thence. And whatsoever place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony unto them. And they went out, and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (vi. 6-13, R.V.).
The re-iterated rebuff which the Lord received at Nazareth did not deter Him from continuing His service. In unabated diligence He went on with His work, going round the Galilean towns and villages teaching. This Gospel throws into special prominence the zealous activities of the Servant of Jehovah. At the same time it shows that the end of His labor, judged from the common standpoint of human life, was not such as is usually seen in the careers of busy public men. “Seest thou a man diligent in business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men” (Prov. 22:2929Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men. (Proverbs 22:29)). The Lord stood before kings truly, but He stood before them not for reward, but for unjust condemnation. From the outset He knew that He was going on to be “numbered with the transgressors"; but He shunned no man, standing in lowly submission before the obscure men of Nazareth to serve even them—only they could not endure Him.
These men of Nazareth were full of unbelief, and “where there was this unbelief, our Lord would not remove it by dazzling feats of power, because there would have been no moral worth in a result so produced. He had given already abundant signs to unbelief; but men had not profited by them, neither was the word that He spake mixed with faith in them that heard it. The consequence was that He ‘could there do no mighty work’; as here only it is recorded—yes, of the Man before whom no power of Satan, no disease of man, nothing above or around or beneath could prove the smallest difficulty. But God's glory, God's will governed all; and the display of perfect power was in perfect lowliness of obedience. “Therefore this Blessed One could there do no mighty work. It is needless to say that it was no question of power as to Himself. It was not in any wise that His saving arm was shortened; not that there was no virtue in Him any longer, but there was the lovely blending of the moral glorifying of God with all that was wrought for man.
“In other words, we have not here the mere setting forth of the power of Jesus, but the gospel of His ministry. Therefore it is a weighty part of this, that because of unbelief He could do no mighty work there. He was really serving God; and if man only is seen, not God, we may wonder that He could do no mighty work there. But what at first sight seems strange, the moment you take it in connection with the object of God in what He is revealing, becomes striking, plain and instructive.”
THE TWELVE SUMMONED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE
During, or at the conclusion of this Galilean circuit, the Lord called the twelve to Him, and formally despatched them in various directions for the work of preaching. They had hitherto been “with Him” to learn from His own lips the nature and character of His teaching. Thus we read that He “went about through the cities and villages preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God; and with him the twelve” (Luke 8:11And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, (Luke 8:1)). This companionship with the Master was specified in the original terms of their apostolate. The record of their call is that the Lord “appointed twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14, 1514And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: (Mark 3:14‑15)).
Mark accordingly shows how the chosen band accompanied the Master and how they were instructed by Him in the things of the kingdom of God, set out in parables which He afterward expounded to them (chap. 4), while they were also made witnesses of His power over the elements of nature (4:35-41) and over unclean spirits and disease, and even over death (chap. 5). This comprised their training for service. At the fountain-head they learned what they were to preach, and, more important still, what a transcendent power was behind the ministry of the kingdom to make it effectual.
The discipline of the inward man for days of suffering and disappointment is not noted here as elsewhere. The immediate object of their mission on this occasion was to announce the gospel of the kingdom of God—to make known what they had seen and what they had heard. And this feature of personal acquaintance must, of necessity, characterize all divine testimony (1 John 1:11That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)).
The twelve disciples were now sent forth by the Lord in twos, Mark alone recording this arrangement. The lists of the names of the apostles are arranged in pairs (Matt. 10:2-42Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus; 4Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (Matthew 10:2‑4); Luke 6:14-1614Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. (Luke 6:14‑16)), and this dual arrangement may therefore indicate the order adopted by the Lord in sending them to preach. At any rate two ensured mutual help and adequate testimony.
As the Lord's purpose was to send them to preach, so it was to bestow upon them power over demons (3:15). They were able to exhibit the credentials of apostles— “signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor. 12:1212Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)). They were able to produce marvelous acts which were samples of the “powers of the age to come.” They were sent into the domain of the prince of this world to announce the imminence of the kingdom of Jehovah and His anointed; and in the commission for this service the Lord showed His divine power and Godhead by bestowing upon His followers authority over the demon-servants of Satan. A mere man could never delegate to others such power over unclean spirits; but Jesus possessed this authority Himself (1:27), and moreover imparted it to the twelve.
PERSONAL DIRECTIONS
The Lord gave the apostles precise directions with regard to their outfit for this traveling mission. Their preparations were to be marked by lowliness and simplicity. How incongruous any appearance of luxury and pomp would have been in the emissaries of the poor and despised Nazarene. Accordingly the apostles were to take nothing for their journey, save a staff only. This article was essential to the poorest traveler. Jacob, referring to his poverty when fleeing to Padan-aram, and contrastedly to the riches he possessed on his return, said, “With my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two companies” (Gen. 32:1010I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast showed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands. (Genesis 32:10)).
Further, the apostles were prohibited from taking with them any bread, or any bag to carry provisions, or any money in their girdle to purchase necessaries even. They were to use ordinary footwear, and not to put on two coats. Though invested with inimitable power over unclean demons, they were to be in circumstances which would make them outwardly dependent upon the “cold charities” of a selfish world.
By these directions the apostles were prepared to learn by experience the elementary but fundamentally important lesson of spiritual service, viz., dependence upon God for those things after which the Gentiles habitually seek (Matt. 6:3232(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. (Matthew 6:32)). They would find during their mission that their Master had the control of providence as well as of winds and waves and demons. And we know historically from their own confession that the Lord did care for them without fail. He Himself said to them on the night of His betrayal, “When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing.” But from that time onward their circumstances would alter, for He said, intimating the approaching change, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword” (Luke 22:35, 3635And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:35‑36)).
These instructions of the Lord all point to the simplicity which, it was His will, should mark them as His servants. So Paul wrote to Timothy, “No soldier on service entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath enrolled him as a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:44No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. (2 Timothy 2:4)). The absence of luggage would enable them to be more expeditious in their traveling. Their work was among the simple peasantry of Galilee where signs of affluence would hinder the reception of their preaching. Besides, if they possessed two coats, for instance, would it not have been their duty to have imparted one to him that had none (Luke 3:1111He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. (Luke 3:11))?
The following remarks on the subject were made by a traveler in the East. “The entire ‘outfit' of these first missionaries shows that they were plain fishermen, farmers or shepherds; and to such men there was no extraordinary self-denial in the matter or the mode of their mission. We may expound the ‘instructions ' given to these primitive evangelists somewhat after the following manner: “Provide neither silver, nor gold, nor brass in your purses. You are going to your brethren in the neighboring villages, and the best way to get to their hearts and their confidence is to throw yourself upon their hospitality. Nor was there any departure from the simple manners of the country in this. At this day the farmer sets out on excursions quite as extensive, without a para in his purse; and the modern Moslem prophet of Tarshiha thus sends forth his apostles over this identical region. Neither do they encumber themselves with two coats. They are accustomed to sleep in the garments they have on during the day, and in this climate such plain people experience no inconvenience from it. They wear a coarse shoe, answering to the sandal of the ancients, but never take two pairs of them; and although the staff is an invariable companion of all wayfarers, they are content with one.”
THE PREACHING OF REPENTANCE
These twelve men went forth therefore in six different directions, and the burden of their message wherever they went was that men should repent. The verb “repent,” and its related noun, “repentance,” only occur three times in the Gospel of Mark; for the words, “to repentance,” in 2:17, are omitted in critical editions of the New Testament. The occurrences, however, illustrate the unity of purpose in the Gospel. They are the following:
(1) “John came who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins” (1:4).
(2) “Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel” (1:15).
(3) “And they [the twelve apostles] went out, and preached that men should repent” (6:12).
The continuity of the testimony to the fundamental necessity for man's repentance in view of the coming kingdom is strikingly shown by this sequence. What John the Baptist declared, the Lord emphasized, and the twelve echoed: Except men repented they would all perish. But should one sinner only repent on earth, this would become an occasion of rejoicing in heaven, as the Lord Himself declared (Luke 15).
But scripture is clear that repentance was and is a necessity for men—not only in the land of Israel but in all the world. It is therein placed on record that the Lord before His departure instructed the apostles that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:4747And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)). Paul also, “the apostle of the uncircumcision,” in harmony with this commission to the twelve, announced in Athens that now, in contrast with the former times, God “commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:3030And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)).
There is therefore a necessity, and an urgent necessity, enforced by divine command, and laid upon men without exception for that radical change which is implied by the scriptural term “repentance.” It is, however, outside our present purpose to discuss whether this change is one (1) of heart or disposition, (2) of mind or thought, (3) of aim or purpose, or (4) of life or conduct. The essential fact to note is that repentance involves change, and that of the most Momentous nature. Inwardly, this change extends to the deepest springs of a man's conduct; outwardly, it corrects his attitude Godward, for repentance is primarily “toward God” (Acts 20:2121Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)), being also manward by inevitable consequence.
This need for repentance was insisted upon in view of the earthly kingdom as it was presented in the days of our Lord, and it was no less pressed in the preaching of the heavenly kingdom in the days of the apostles. Paul himself declared how he testified to Jews and Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God and do works worthy of repentance (Acts 26:2020But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (Acts 26:20)), the last phrase being an echo of the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:88Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: (Matthew 3:8)).
This necessity rests, not upon the avowedly impenitent only, but upon those who bear the name of Christ. Witness the messages of the Lord Himself to the seven churches of Asia. Five of them, Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea, are definitely exhorted to repentance (Rev. 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 195Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Revelation 2:5)
16Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (Revelation 2:16)
22Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (Revelation 2:22)
3Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (Revelation 3:3)
19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (Revelation 3:19)). Judgment will begin with the unrepentant in the house of God, therefore let every man beware lest he cherish the vain delusion that he is one of the “ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.”
STAFF AND STAVES
The prohibition of the Lord having reference to a staff shows some variation in the records of the first three Evangelists. The passages are as follows—
(1) Matt.. 10:9, 10: “Provide neither gold, nor silver... nor yet staves.” The Revised Version reads, “Get you no gold nor silver... nor staff.”
The variation in the phrase, taking the readings adopted by the Revisers, may thus be set out—
(1) MATT.: Do not get a staff.
(2) MARK: Take a staff only.
(3) LUKE: Do not take a staff.
Thus, the critics allege that according to both Matthew and Luke, the apostles were forbidden to take a staff, while according to Mark they were permitted to do so. It is true also that Matthew and Mark differ in their phraseology. The former forbids the apostles to get or to provide a staff, that is, in addition to the usual one, while the latter grants permission to them to take a “staff only,” but not one additional to the ordinary one. Understood in this sense, the difference in the phrases does not constitute any essential disagreement between the two statements.
The expression in Luke at first sight raises a difficulty, since it seems to say, Do not take a staff at all, in opposition to Mark. But the “discrepancy” is only an apparent one, for it will be observed that the prohibition is directed entirely to the preparation for the journey contemplated, and the staff is included with the scrip and bread and money: “Take nothing for your journey, neither staff nor scrip nor bread nor money.” The very commonest article was not to be procured by the twelve in view of their mission. They might make use of the ordinary walking staff, but they might not provide one specially for their new enterprise.
This seems to be the simple and unstrained solution of the problem, and preferable to the elaborate and forced hypothesis of McClellan, who supposes that the word staff is used in these passages in a double sense, viz., (1) the staff for traveling, and (2) the staff of apostolic office. The latter they were enjoined to take, but not the former. This is pure assumption, and is altogether unnecessary for adequate explanation of the passages; for the plain import of the phrases in all three evangelists is that the apostles were not to make any special preparation for the journey.
ANOINTING WITH OIL
The apostles in the course of their ministry “cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.” The circumstance of the anointing is only mentioned in Mark, but the healing of the sick is also associated with oil in the Epistle of James: “Is any among you sick? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up” (James 5:1414Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (James 5:14)).
It is known that oil was used throughout the East as a remedial agent. Not to make reference beyond the Bible, the Good Samaritan administered oil as well as wine to the wounded man (Luke 10:3434And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (Luke 10:34)). Isaiah refers to the mollification of wounds with oil (Isa. 1:66From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. (Isaiah 1:6)). Is it not therefore reasonable to suppose that the disciples and the elders of the church applied oil to sick persons, as a natural remedy, this being a simple specific within the power of those lacking medical knowledge and skill? And they did so, relying on the power and blessing of the Lord to make the means efficacious. Further than this we have no warrant for imitating their example in these days.
THE WORDS OMITTED IN VERSE 11 BY THE REVISERS
The latter part of verse 11 in the Authorized Version (161.1) contains the solemn warning by our Lord against such as refused the preaching of the apostles: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. [Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city].”
The Revisers (1882) substitute “whatsoever place” for “whosoever,” and omit, without any marginal comment, the whole of the words placed between the brackets []. It is true that the words thus deleted in this Gospel are found in substance in two others, viz., in Matthew (10:15) and in Luke (10:12), so that the general truth of the warning clause expunged in Mark is still maintained by these passages; but the question may well be asked on what grounds the omission is made in the Second Gospel.
It is not, however, proposed to discuss in these notes the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence upon which these words are denied a place in Mark's Gospel, but it may sufficiently serve a useful purpose to point to this passage as one among many others in the New Testament where, in the opinion of scholars competent to judge in matters of textual authority, the Revisers were unduly influenced by the testimony of a few ancient witnesses to disregard that of the more numerous documents.
The late Mr. Kelly, writing in July, 1881, on the “Revised New Testament," a month or two after its publication, said in reference to this passage, “The latter half of chapter 6:11 seems an accommodation from Matthew 11 and Luke 10 with changes. Yet the ancient testimony is so ample (eleven uncials, nearly all the cursives, and some of the best versions) that it surprises one to see no remark in the margin on such a difference,” that is, on such an extensive omission in the face of weighty evidence for its retention.
The summary treatment of this passage by the Revisers is adversely criticized, but more decisively than by Mr. Kelly, in a posthumous work of Dean Burg-on, arranged and edited by Prebendary Miller. He rightly points out how destructive of the individuality of the Gospels such unwarranted excision becomes. These are his words: “The value—may I not say the use?—of these delicate differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called in question.” He then goes on to refer to the words withdrawn from Mark. “It is pretended,” he says, “that this [passage] is nothing else but an importation from the parallel place of Matthew's Gospel (10:15). But that is impossible for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two places. Mark writes, Σοδὁμοις ἢ Γομόρροις; Matthew, γη Σοδόμων καὶ Γομὸρρων. And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down the ages; it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel, except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those fifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of one another.
The passage in Luke 9:55And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. (Luke 9:5) refers to the rejection of the apostles' preaching, but has no warning based on the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrha. The Revisers have made Mark agree with Luke by omitting the clause. It must be noted, however, that the warning occurs in the following chapter of Luke, though in slightly different terms, being applied to the city rejecting the witness of the Seventy: “It shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city” (Luke 10:11, 1211Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. (Luke 10:11‑12)).
It will be gathered from the above criticism that the internal evidence for the exclusion of this passage is very weak, just as the external evidence is very scanty. The assumption that the words were inserted in the Gospel of Mark by some scribes in order to agree with either Matthew or Luke rests upon a most slender basis.
(1) If the words were taken from Matthew, why is there such diversity still remaining? Matthew reads “for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah,” but Mark reads “for Sodom and Gomorrah.” In the Greek the distinction in the words is more apparent still, because the proper names have different case—endings in the two Gospels—in Matthew the genitive case is used, and in Mark the dative. The conjunction differs also: in Matthew καὶ (and), in Mark ἢ (or). These points of difference are not likely to have occurred if the phrase in question was copied into Mark from Matthew, as the critics allege.
(2) Neither does it appear that Mark copied from Luke, for the latter names only Sodom, but Mark both Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, Luke has “in that day,” but Mark has “in the day of judgment.” These verbal distinctions make it most improbable that the sentence was added from Luke. Besides, it has already been noted that the Lord's warning is given in Luke in connection with the preaching of the Seventy and not with that of the Twelve as in Mark.
It seems therefore incredible that the received text in Mark 6:1111And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Mark 6:11) should possess so many indications of originality if of spurious origin. And we may still reflect upon the significant fact that all three Gospels unite to show that not temporal only but eternal issues hung upon the acceptance or rejection of the apostles' preaching.
W. J. H.