Matthew 10

CHAPTER X

VII

Christ Appoints his Apostles, Chapter 10

Matthew 10:1

1 Although 9:36–38 prepares for chapter 10, the contents of this chapter form an independent section. Compare Mark 3:13, etc.; Luke 9:1, etc. When Jesus sent out the Seventy a little later, he again spoke the word about the plenteous harvest and the few laborers (Luke 10:1–3; Matt. 9:37). Nor need it cause surprise that some of the directions given to the Twelve in our present chapter were likewise given to the Seventy, Luke 10:4, etc. The exact time of the commissioning of the Twelve is not indicated; for 9:35 places us into the midst of the travels of Jesus in Galilee where Jesus saw the multitudes in their deplorable condition. And having called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to expel them, also to heal every disease and every sickness.

This reads as though it at once followed upon 9:36–38. Matthew repeatedly uses προσκαλεσάμενος in the ordinary sense of calling someone unto himself to face him. Here the Twelve are asked to stand before Jesus in order to receive their commission. We see that Matthew emphasizes the number “twelve,” repeating it in verses 2 and 5. The Twelve, as here introduced, appear as already being a fixed group of whom Matthew’s readers know without his needing to state how these twelve men came to be such a group. The word “disciples” is broader.

It may refer to some or all of the Twelve together with others who followed Jesus as believers, according as the context requires.

Only the fact is stated that the Twelve were given the mighty ἐξουσία over unclean spirits (an objective genitive, R. 500), the term denoting both the power and the right to use that power. With what words this “authority” was given we are not told. “So as to expel them,” ὥστε with the infinitive, is scarcely pure purpose (R. 990) but contemplated result (R. 1089–1090). The second infinitive, “and to heal,” etc., cannot depend on ὥστε but must be construed with ἐξουσία: “authority also to heal.” The notion that all disease and sickness is due to evil spirits is not supported in the Scriptures and cannot in this instance be based on a grammatical construction alone. The demons, of whom we have heard before, are here called “unclean πνεύματα,” spirit beings, evil angels, denominated “unclean” or impure to describe their defiled and defiling character; they are the very opposite of God and of his holy angels. Sin is always vile. “Authority over unclean spirits” is defined by the ὥστε clause. Jesus grants the Twelve the very same power which he possesses, to free men from demoniacal possession and to heal them from all kinds of ailments. The bestowal of this “authority” upon the Twelve and then upon the Seventy (Luke 10:17–20) reveals his deity.

Matthew 10:2

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew, the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddeus; Simon, the Cananæan, and Judas Iscariot, the one that did also betray him. Ἀπόστολος, derived from ἀποστέλλειν, “to commission,” the verb which Jesus often uses to define his own mission from the Father, denotes much more than a servant sent to deliver a message; it denotes a duly empowered representative, an ambassador or legate who acts for his lord or king. While this word is at times used in a broad sense so as to include the helpers of the Twelve and Paul, here “the twelve apostles” include only this definite number. They have an immediate call from Jesus, and this is issued because of their future fundamental work (Eph. 2:20) in the church; their inspired records constitute the doctrinal foundation of the church. Jesus now made the Twelve such “apostles,” hence the list of names. “Twelve” is repeated (in v. 5, and in 11:1), matching the twelve patriarchs and the twelve tribes of Israel.

The list is grouped in pairs—they at first went out two by two. Peter is always named first, Iscariot always last, and (making three groups with four in each group) the same names are always found in each group only the order being changed here and there. Matthew mentions only Judas and Peter in the rest of his Gospel. Πρῶτος, “the first,” does not place the others under Peter as being the pope but names him as primus inter pares. He was not even the first to come to Jesus (John 1:41, 42). Writing for Jews, Matthew calls him “Simon” and adds the other name by which he was distinguished from other Simons and by which the Lord prophetically honored him. His brother Andrew is naturally associated with him.

James and John, a second pair of brothers, are listed according to age, and James is distinguished from others who bore this name by the modifier “(son) of Zebedee” (he was martyred, cf. Acts 12:2).

Matthew 10:3

3 Bartholomew is a patronymic: son of Tolmai (Ptolomy), the Nathanel of John 1:45, etc. Matthew places his own name after that of Thomas and also humbly adds “the publican,” a designation which none of the other three lists contains. The second James is also identified according to his parentage. It seems that Thaddeus had two other names: Lebbeus and Judas (John 14:22). This latter name would naturally be dropped after the betrayal on the part of Judas Iscariot. See the critics in regard to the reading.

Matthew 10:4

4 The second Simon is distinguished as “the Cananæan,” which term has nothing to do with Canaan but is a transcription of the Aramaic term which means ὁΖηλωτής. Simon was a former adherent of the Jewish party of “the Zealots” (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant., 18, 1, 1 and 6; Wars, 2, 8, 1). Judas is identified as “Iscariot,” “the man of Kerioth,” being thus named from his home town in Judea. In John 6:70 his father Simon bears this appellation. In the Gospels he is designated as the traitor, ὁπαραδούς, the aorist participle being used as an apposition and denoting the historical fact: “did betray,” i.e., hand over to the Jews.

Matthew 10:5

5 These twelve Jesus commissioned, having charged them, saying, etc. This group of men and their number are again stressed. The chief act is expressed by the finite aorist ἀπέστειλεν, to which the secondary act is added by means of the aorist participle παραγγείλας. Mark 6:7–13 reports how the Twelve were sent out, the charge to them being abbreviated, and the work they did on their first mission is briefly sketched. Luke 9:1–6 is similar. In Mark 6:30, etc., and in Luke 9:10 we hear about the return of the Twelve and the quiet conference Jesus had with them.

Matthew says nothing about the mission of the Seventy and the charge with which they were sent out (Luke 10:1, etc.). The fact that this would be similar to the charge given the Twelve need not be stated. This leaves Matt. 10:16–42 as a unit, which is sometimes regarded as incorporating or containing instructions that were issued much later (such as Mark 13:9–13; Luke 21:12–19). This conclusion may be questioned. Matthew, himself one of the Twelve, records the complete charge as it was given by Jesus when the Twelve were first sent out. He is telling us, not, like Mark and Luke, only of the mission to Galilee during the next days or weeks, but of the complete apostolic mission of the Twelve, now into Galilee and then at last into all the world.

This explains v. 16–42. A view of their entire mission would be valuable at the very start; and the fact that portions of this charge with natural verbal changes should later be repeated is due to their importance.

First, the instructions for their preliminary mission in Galilee. Do not go off on a Gentile road and do not go into a Samaritan town. The genitives are possessive: a road belonging to Gentiles, a town belonging to Samaritans. Gentiles and Samaritans are classed together since the latter were a mixed race that was hostile to the Jews and had a false religion (John 4:22). The time for world-wide evangelization had not yet come. What Jesus had done on one occasion in Samaria (John 4:3–42) and on certain occasions for individual Gentiles (as in 8:5, etc.) and what he had hitherto said about salvation for all men (5:13, 14; 8:11) was prophetic; was not intended for the present but for the great days of the future.

Matthew 10:6

6 But keep going rather to the lost sheep of Israel’s house. Compare Jer. 50:6; Ezek. 34:2, etc. The imperatives used in v. 5 are properly aorists: not at all are the Twelve to go to Gentiles and to Samaritans. But now the imperative is a durative present: continually are they to go to the Jews. There is a strong motive in the expression “lost sheep of Israel’s house” which is repeated by Jesus in 15:24. The perfect participle ἀπολωλότα describes a present condition (R. 881), which is due to a past act.

These are the sheep that ought to be with the flock but are far from their Shepherd. Surely, therefore, all effort should be made to restore them to the flock. But this participle denotes more than the thought that the sheep have strayed away. Its opposite is σωθῆναι, “to be saved and thus to be safe.” These sheep are in a perishing condition; having entered it, they are still in it. For their own sake they should be helped, restored. Compare 9:36.

They are “the sheep of Israel’s house,” precious on that account. “Israel’s house” is an Old Testament expression for the chosen nation as descended from its ancestor Israel whom God called “Israel,” one who rules with God. These perishing sheep of Israel ought to be sought first of all.

Matthew 10:7

7 Here is stated what the Twelve are to do. Now as you go keep proclaiming, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has come near. They are to make this their chief work, to announce this good news as heralds (κηρύσσειν, “to make a public proclamation”). They are thus to continue the work the Baptist began (3:2) and Jesus continued (4:17). On “the kingdom,” etc., see 3:2. Only the theme or substance of the proclamation is given; this naturally required elaboration. The kingdom is the rule of grace, power, etc., die Koenigsherrschaft, which is now at hand and in progress in Jesus, the King.

Matthew 10:8

8 Sick heal; dead raise; lepers cleanse; demons expel; freely you received, freely give. Note the beauty and the power of the form—each clause having only two terms. The power to work miracles had already been bestowed upon the Twelve (v. 1); here they are merely told to exercise this power. After healing the sick they are to turn their attention to the dead; and the lepers who were regarded as unclean are placed next to the unclean demons. We have no record that any of the Twelve raised a dead person on this evangelistic tour. The power to do so was in the possession of each.

For that matter, most of the Twelve never raised the dead, and on this tour each of the Twelve did not work the different kinds of miracles here enumerated. Note the durative present imperatives, all save the last, δότε, which is a constative or comprehensive aorist. No objects are attached to the last two verbs, which means that none are to be supplied, all the stress being on the two adverbs “freely” and on their verbs. The great gifts to be bestowed (“give”) are to be offered gratis, without charge or pay of any kind. This applies to the entire mission of the Twelve throughout the future. That is why raising the dead is mentioned here at the start, for Jesus looks farther than this brief tour.

Matthew 10:9

9 Here is what the Twelve are not to take along. Do not provide gold or silver or brass money for your girdles, in which money was usually carried. They were to take no money, not even a few coins made of the baser metal.

Matthew 10:10

10 Nor a pouch for the road, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for worthy is the worker of his nourishment. They are not to provide a pouch in which to carry food or clothing; the addition of εἰςὁδόν, “for the road,” as well as the fact that “a pouch” is mentioned after the money and not after “freely give,” is conclusive evidence against Deissmann’s view (Light, etc., 108) that here πήρα is “a beggar’s bag” for collecting alms. Just as the Twelve are not to carry anything for the journey in their girdles, so they are to carry nothing in any other receptacle, hence are to have no pouch at all.

“Nor two tunics” implies that the one they are wearing is enough. Travellers often had two or even more, not only in order to make a change, but also to wear both together against cold. “Nor sandals, nor a staff,” compared with Mark 6:8, “except a staff only,” is best taken to mean that the Twelve are not to provide new sandals and a new staff in view of the tour but are to go with the sandals and the staff they have. In other words, the Twelve are not to outfit themselves for the tour.

This does not indicate that they are to endure special hardships but that they are to dismiss all care for their bodily needs. He who sends them out will provide for them in all respects. Their first experience is to teach them complete trust, Luke 22:35. “For worthy is the worker of his nourishment” is, of course, not intended as an academic or abstract proposition. Jesus is sending out these workers, and as their Lord he says that they are worthy of their sustenance. In other words, he himself gives them assurance on this point. Therefore they must act without the least worry.

In ἄξιος we have the idea of equal weight between the worker and his living or support, τροφή, in Luke 10:7 and in 1 Tim. 5:18, μισθός, with little difference in force. Other employers may rob their workers, Jesus never does so. He may seem to have nothing, but everything is at his command. This truth the faith of the Twelve is to realize by their own experience.

Matthew 10:11

11 Just how the Twelve are to proceed is now stated in detail, δέ being quite in order. Now into whatever town or village you enter search out who in it is worthy and there remain until you leave. Note that in these verses Matthew is more specific than either Mark or Luke. Here, too, “worthy” has the idea of equal weight: the apostles (i.e., two always going together, Mark 6:7) as the representatives of Jesus on the one hand, and the man who is of a type and character to be willing to lodge them, on the other. It would not be a difficult matter to determine who is such a man. The two apostles would make their public proclamation in the place (v. 7: κηρύσσετε), the people would hear and see who had come into their midst, and so in most cases it would prove an easy matter to find the proper person with whom to lodge.

The idea is not that the apostles would inquire about a fit place to stay before they had begun to preach; or that their inquiry was made in order to avoid lodging in a disreputable house; or that Jesus expected them to work only privately in the homes and not publicly before the people in the town or the village. “There remain” means: while you are in the place. The apostles are not to shift to another host who, perhaps, may offer better lodging and fare. The hospitality first offered is to be honored.

Matthew 10:12

12 And on going into the house (thus selected) salute it; and if the house is worthy, let your peace be upon it; but if it is not worthy, your peace—let it return to you. The greeting or salutation would, of course, be, “Peace to you!” (John 20:19, 26). But this would never be a mere conventional phrase but the full reality; shalom, spiritual well-being with all that this connotes would come to and upon that house, i.e., the family it shelters. By their presence and their work the apostles would in reality bestow this gift. Of course, this involved that the gift would be received. “Worthy” implies that there was a balance between the offer and the reception of the gift, and not between the value of the gift and the merit of the owner of the house. Those that hunger and thirst after righteousness are the only ones that shall be filled, 5:6.

The imperative ἐλθάτω expresses the will of Jesus: “let it come upon it!” and the aorist implies: fully and completely, once for all. Here we again see that the apostles are only the agents of Jesus.

Matthew 10:13

13 But the apostles may make a mistake. The house (family) may, after all, turn out to be “not worthy.” After extending a warm welcome, the owner, on learning more about Jesus and the kingdom, may show his dislike for both. Cases like this still occur in mission work. The offer of peace is made, but the response to it ceases; the two are out of balance, “not worthy.” Then the will of Jesus is that the peace return to the apostles who brought it as a gift. This cannot mean that at least the apostles will have this peace as a blessing when it returns to them, getting something for themselves out of the disappointing transaction. When men refuse God’s gifts, these are never wasted or lost; the bearers will find other men who are happy to receive these very gifts. Where one door closes, another is opened.

Matthew 10:14

14 And whoever does not receive you, nor hear your words—on going out of the house or of that city shake off the dust of your feet. The relative clause beginning with ὅς is left suspended in the construction (R. 437); more than this, the relative refers ad sensum not merely to the owner of one house but equally to the inhabitants of an entire town: “out of the house or of that city.” We again see that Jesus is not thinking of the first entrance into a house or a town and of a leaving immediately after the first salutation. For both μὴδέξηται and μηδὲἀκούσῃ are aorists and refer to definite receiving and effectual hearing. Jesus here warns the disciples that, when it comes to definitely receiving them as the heralds of Jesus and of the kingdom, they may be disappointed; after their true character and purpose become known, they may find themselves altogether unwelcome. In fact, they may come to a town where, after their preaching has been heard, nobody may have a welcome and hospitality for them. What then?

Leave, of course, the house for another, the town for another. But “on leaving (ἐξερχόμενοι) shake off the dust of your feet.” This symbolic act signifies that the feet of the heralds of the kingdom have actually been in the house or the town and that they leave this their dust in witness to the fact that they were there but were forced to leave because they were unwelcome. This act was not a sign of contempt; nor was the dust of the place defiling, nor does it indicate that the apostles will have absolutely nothing to do with the place; nor was this act equal to exclusion from the kingdom.

Matthew 10:15

15 Amen, I say to you, more endurable will it be for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city! To this extent Jesus backs up his representatives. On “amen,” the seal of verity, and on, “I say to you,” the seal of authority, see 5:18. Ἀνεκτότερον (from ἀνέχομαι, “to hold up” or “to endure”) refers to the lesser penalty to be inflicted at the final judgment at the end of the world (11:22, 24). Sodom and Gomorrah (in the Greek two neuter plurals) are types of extreme wickedness and at the same time preliminary examples of the final judgment itself. Great as their guilt was, the guilt of those who reject Christ’s apostles and refuse to hear their words of peace is greater, and the final punishment will thus be harder to bear. “Land” and “city” are common figures for their inhabitants. To lie in sin and thus to perish is bad; to lie in sin and in addition to reject grace and thus to perish, is worse.

The fact that this saying of Jesus involves the resurrection of the wicked should not be questioned. Hell has degrees of suffering. To say that the fate of the damned is yet to be definitely determined is to overlook the fact that Jesus has here already determined it. “In the judgment day” what has now been settled in the Word will be rendered as the verdict publicly, before the universe, by Jesus, the Judge himself. “More endurable” does not suggest probation after death; the implication is the very reverse.

Matthew 10:16

16 We decline to attribute to Matthew what belongs to Jesus: the conception of this commissioning address. Matthew did not conceive the idea of it and then compile it from words of Jesus spoken at various times; Jesus conceived and spoke this address as it stands. Jesus feels, and rightly, that with this preliminary tour he is really sending the apostles out on their great mission in life. It is thus that he gives them a survey of what they may expect. The great pronoun ἐγώ, “I,” runs through the address (verses 16, 22, “because of my name,” 24, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34–38, 40, 42). The theme of the address is the statement: Lo, I myself am commissioning you as sheep among wolves! This means first, that you shall fare accordingly (v. 16–23); secondly, just like your Teacher (v. 24–33); thirdly, because I came to divide (v. 34–39); fourthly, you will be received (v. 40–42).

The interjection “lo” indicates the surprising nature of what Jesus tells the Twelve. Who would think of sending sheep among wolves? How long would they last? But this is what I am doing, Jesus says. Therefore, go and dismiss all fear and keep me in mind! Ἐνμέσῳ is a compound preposition (R. 648) and is often regarded as one word: “among.” The idea is not: “into the midst of wolves,” but: “as already among wolves.” “As sheep” characterizes the apostles. They have lost all the viciousness that is due to sin and wickedness. “Wolves” characterizes the world of men as being viciously wicked because it is filled with and animated by sin.

The combination of the two comparisons produces the idea of the helplessness of the apostles among wicked men. As sheep they have no defense against wolves. But this only shows what lies in ἐγώ—Jesus is their protector. The verb ἀποστέλλω, from which “apostle” is derived (see v. 5), is more significant than πέμπω, “to send”; it means to send as a representative, “to commission.” The verb implies that Jesus cannot abandon them, and that all they do is the act of Jesus done through them.

The statement regarding what their whole commission is like is at once followed by another which tells them what their whole conduct should be like. They are sheep among wolves; therefore be keen as the serpents and guileless as the doves. The verb γίνεσθε (present imperative to indicate continuous conduct) takes the place of the corresponding form of εἰμί, B.-P. 250. Since the incident recorded in Gen. 3 the serpent was regarded as a type of a keen mind, the German Klugheit. “Wise” is too lofty a word, “prudent” has a different connotation, “smart” is also offcolor; perhaps “keen” best conveys the thought. As in Luke 16:8, the good feature suggested in keenness is referred to. Hence the qualifying addition, “guileless,” etc., ἀκέραιοι, without admixture, i.e., of base motives such as falseness, cunning, and the like, the type of this good quality being the doves who hurt no one. Luther: φρόνιμοι, “that they may have no just cause against you”; ἀκέραιοι, “heartfelt goodness toward all men.” The outstanding examples of such conduct are David under Saul’s persecution and Paul in his whole ministry.

Matthew 10:17

17 And beware (προσέχω with ἀπό) of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues they will scourge you; and before governors, moreover, and kings shall you be brought on account of me for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. We regard δέ as copulative, “and,” adding something that is somewhat different. In order to comply with the command of v. 16 the apostles must always be on their guard (present imperative) against men who may show hostility, by nature being wolves toward these sheep. The reason for this attitude of carefulness is introduced by the explanatory γάρ. The idea is not that the apostles will escape all harm by being keen and on their guard, for they shall suffer nevertheless; it is rather that they shall understand the temper of men and thus avoid all thoughtless acts which might needlessly inflame that temper. The συνέδρια (σύν plus ἕδρα or “seat”) are the minor, local Jewish courts, in which a number (twenty-three) of judges sit together to try cases.

To be haled before such a council was an indignity. These councils could decree scourging with rods as a penalty, the penalty being at once carried out in the synagogue where the council sat (Acts 22:19; 26:11; 2 Cor. 11:24).

Matthew 10:18

18 From Jewish tribunals Jesus turns to the pagan courts which were presided over by “governors” or procurators and even by kings. The Herodian rulers were popularly styled kings although in reality they were only tetrarchs (over a fourth); Archelaus was called an ethnarch. The implication is that severer penalties, even death itself awaited the apostles in these courts. A terrible prospect, indeed! But Jesus never concealed or softened it (5:10–12). He places the emphasis on the final phrase, “on account of me.” Whatever they suffer is suffered for him.

He sends them; him they represent, him and his royal rule in the kingdom they proclaim. A second phrase interprets the first: “for a testimony to them (the Jews who will be the prime movers in these persecutions) and to the Gentiles” (the governors, the kings with all their officers and men). This will be a grand testimony, indeed, greater even than ordinary preaching. For it will compel these high authorities to investigate judicially the whole cause of the gospel, noting all that it contains and all that it does for men. Whether this testimony makes a salutary impression or not, its mere rendering is the will of Jesus (Acts 1:8, “witnesses unto me”): and its saving effect will always be successful in the case of some.

Matthew 10:19

19 For these severe trials Jesus has special instructions that are full of the greatest comfort. Now, whenever they deliver you up, do not be distracted, how and what you shall utter; for it shall be given to you in that hour what you shall utter; for you are not the ones making utterance but the Spirit of your Father, the one making utterance in you. To be arrested and haled before judges low or high is enough to upset anyone. In addition to the shame, the fear, and other conflicting emotions the trial itself and the matter of their defense would cause the apostles terrible anxiety. They would, however, not merely be concerned that they might defend themselves and escape the infliction of penalties, their anxiety would be chiefly concerned with the honor of Christ and the gospel, and they would fear that because of their mental confusion, mistakes, weakness, ignorance, or other handicaps they might injure the Lord’s cause. After a sleepless night or more in a foul cell, with no advocate at their side, in what condition would they be to do justice to the gospel? “Do not be distracted!” contemplates and meets these situations.

In negative commands in the aorist the subjunctive not the imperative is used. The aorist is peremptory, “Drop all worry completely!”

You are not to have even a thought as to “how or what you shall utter.” Note the use of λαλεῖν (not λέγειν) throughout, “to make utterance,” as opposed to keeping silent. The direct questions: “How, what, shall we speak?” would have the deliberative subjunctive in the Greek; this is retained in the indirect form. A fine psychological touch puts “how” and “what” together with “how” being mentioned first. In his uncertainties the poor prisoner would imagine the trial as taking, perhaps, this turn or that turn, and then he would think as to how he would respond. Despite all his thinking the trial, after all, might take a turn he never thought of.

From these thoughts the prisoner would revert to just what he would say, the real substance of his defense, whatever turn the proceeding might take. The command not even to give the matter a thought is astonishing. Even the powers, abilities, faculties, talents, wisdom, faith, courage, etc., which God gave the apostles and which he wants them to use, are to be entirely disregarded in these ordeals.

The mystery is explained by the γάρ clause: “it shall be given to you,” etc. This is an unqualified promise. The passive verb suggests God as the agent. In the verb “give” lies the strong idea of grace. When God gives, the gift corresponds to him. The τί clause is like the preceding one; R. 738 makes it relative. When God gives a man what he shall utter, the proper name for this is Inspiration. In fact, verses 19, 20 are an exact description of this divine act. Without previous thinking, planning, imagining, at the time of their trials in court the apostles will receive directly from God just what to utter. It will come into their minds just as it is needed, and thus they will utter it aloud. That, in fact, is their entire role: λαλεῖν, “to utter.”

Matthew 10:20

20 What is involved in the fact that they shall be given what they shall utter is made fully clear by γάρ: the one who really makes the utterance is “the Spirit of your Father “That this Spirit is a person, namely the Third Person of the Godhead, is beyond question. Note that λαλεῖν continues. The apostles, indeed, make utterance, and yet they do not, for their act is due to the Holy Spirit, so that most properly he is the one who does this uttering. Everything that is mechanical, magical, unpsychological is shut out by ἐνὑμῖν. The apostles will not be like the demoniacs, their organs of speech and their very wills being violated by a demon. Absolutely the contrary: mind, heart, will operate freely, consciously, in joyful, trustful dependence on the Spirit’s giving, who enables them to find just what to say and how to say it down to the last word, with no mistake or even a wrong word due to faulty memory or disturbed emotions occurring.

This, of course, is Inspiration, Verbal Inspiration (λαλεῖν throughout), than which none other exists. It is here promised to the apostles for specific occasions, but that does not change what is promised. The argument is quite invincible that, if God’s Spirit inspired the apostles when they were subjected to court trials, he was able to inspire them in the same manner at other times, for interests that were far greater (the Word for all ages and nations), according to Christ’s promise, John 14:26. That he did so is attested in 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19–21; by the long list of διά phrases, Isa. 59:21; Hos. 12:11; Ezek. 3:27, and, beginning with Matt. 1:22, throughout the New Testament. It is most tremendously attested by the result, the Bible itself, its every page, which is a product beyond human ability.

What Jesus here promises the apostles was not mere “presence of mind” at the time of the court trials; what Jesus promises is vastly different. The view that inerrancy is not promised here is untenable. We cannot suppose that, when “the Spirit of your Father” makes utterance, he is liable to utter falsities, mistakes, errors. The fact that Jesus could extend what he here promises the Twelve to others also no one should doubt.

The main point remains: what Jesus here promises makes the Spirit the causa efficiens, men the causae instrumentales, as the old dogmaticians stated it. God moves men to speak (or to write), furnishes the thought and the words (suggestio rerum et verborum), so that the utterance is also properly called his. These are not “two factors,” hitched up, like two horses, in a synergistic partnership between which theologians can draw the line. There is only a Giver from whom emanates the whole gift; beneath him only the recipients who receive the whole gift. The thing is a fact not a “theory”; although it is incomprehensible to us it is yet real, actual. Our dogmaticians illustrate it: a man dictates to his amanuensis, a blower plays a flute, the plectrum strikes the lyre.

The first of these illustrations has been misapplied by calling it “the dictation theory.” But why not also “the flute theory,” “the lyre theory”? An illustration should not be mistaken for a theory. If these illustrations are inadequate, then, please, bring on better ones. It is not very “scientific” to center on an illustration and deny the fact or the doctrine which it would illustrate because the illustration seems to be inadequate.

Matthew 10:21

21 To what extremes hatred of Christ will go is graphically described. And brother will deliver up brother unto death, and father, child; and children will rise up against parents and bring them to death. These are frightful cases of denunciation before pagan courts, some of which happened during the ten great persecutions. Besser writes that two things are stronger than natural love, the one born of hell, the other born of heaven. The verb ἐπανίστημι is regularly used to designate rebellious uprising.

Matthew 10:22

22 And you shall be hated by all on account of my name; but he that did endure to the end, he shall be saved. The periphrastic future, ἔσεσθε. with the present participle, brings out prominently the continuing nature of this hatred, R. 357, 889. “By all” is the popular way of expressing general hatred. The reason for it is the ὄνομα of Christ which here, too, signifies more than merely the personal names “Jesus,” “Christ,” etc.; it includes all by which he is known. Hence in phrases such as this, “name” is equivalent to “revelation.” In dislike and opposition men will turn against everything that really reveals Christ and makes him known. The implication is that the apostles and those who succeed them will always proclaim this name or revelation (v. 7), and thus this hatred will be aroused. In the Acts the persecutors even avoid pronouncing the name Jesus wherever this is possible; the same phenomenon is observed in the rituals of certain secret orders.

The aorist participle ὁὑπομείνας, “he that did endure,” is in relation to the future verb “shall be saved.” The enduring all completely is followed by the deliverance and the condition of safety (σώζειν always including the two). “To the end” must refer to death; for “bring to death” immediately precedes. The phrase cannot refer to the Parousia and the Judgment Day. Οὖτος emphatically repeats the subject in the sense that he, he alone, shall be saved and not he that fails to endure; the tense “shall be saved” is the effective future, R. 871.

Matthew 10:23

23 Moreover, when they are persecuting you in this city, start to flee into the next, τὴνἑτέραν, R. 748. Despite all their courage the messengers of Christ are to use prudence. They are not to throw away their lives. Thus Jesus himself acted; Peter also did so, Acts 12:17, as did Paul on various occasions. The present imperative is conative: “start to flee,” or permissive: “you may go and flee.”

With γάρ an explanation is added. For, amen, I say to you, you shall by no means finish the cities of Israel until the Son of man shall come. On the formula for verity (“amen”).and authority (“I say to you”) see 5:18. To finish the cities of Israel means to get to all of them, but not, as some think, reaching them as places of refuge, but reaching them in order to do their work in them. The verb τελεῖν does not have the connotation of flight and seeking refuge; it means “to complete” the cities, reach all of them with the gospel.

In this section (v. 16–23), as in the following, Jesus reaches out into the future, far beyond the lifetime of the Twelve, and yet he reverts also to the Twelve and to what shall occur during their lives. He now does the latter. According to Acts 1:8 the Twelve are to begin with the Jewish land. And now Jesus tells them that before they finish this territory, the Son of man shall come (the title is explained in 8:20). He again speaks about this coming in 16:28; 24:34; 26:64; and interprets it for us in 22:7; 23:38, 39. The coming here referred to is the terrible judgment which came upon the Jews in the war of the year 66, ending with the total destruction of Jerusalem, making 90, 000 Jews slaves, and permanently depriving the nation of its land. Because Jesus speaks of the judgment visited on the Jews he uses the title “the Son of man,” for as such he exercises judgment.

Spiritualizing interpretations of this coming are out of place. Those who find in the words of Jesus a reference to the Parousia at the end of the world think that Jesus says that this will take place before the Twelve cover the cities of Israel in their work. But this view cannot be harmonized with 24:36, for the Parousia is still to come. The very fact that Jesus says “the cities of Israel” makes the coming of Jesus refer to these and not to the world in general. Incidentally, we may accept the deduction that the way in which Matthew here reports this statement of Jesus indicates a date for the writing of his Gospel prior to the year 66.

Matthew 10:24

24 Considering the world of men into which Jesus sends the Twelve, it is only natural that they should find themselves treated as sheep among wolves (v. 16–23); considering also their relation to their Teacher, the same treatment is to be expected (v. 24–33). A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his lord. This double statement is axiomatic, so self-evident as to need no proof. On μαθητής see 5:1; he is an individual who has imbibed the spirit of his teacher. But as one who is a disciple he remains under his teacher, for the thing that makes him what he is he has obtained from his teacher.

This relation is even more evident in the case of a slave and his lord. The lord actually owns the slave, who can thus never be above his lord. Yet two sides of this relation are indicated. Disciple and slave are intimately joined to teacher and lord, we may say identified with them, the disciple of his own volition, he choosing the teacher, the slave by the lord’s volition, he buying the slave. While the statements are entirely general, they are also quite evidently intended to indicate the relation obtaining between the Twelve and Jesus. Moreover, we cannot stop with the Twelve but must include all who to this day are truly μαθηταί and δοῦλοι of Jesus.

Matthew 10:25

25 The thought is carried a step farther. Enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher; and the slave as his lord. If either actually reaches this height (γένηται, aorist), this is sufficient. He may not have advanced that far, but this would be his goal. Jesus, of course, is not thinking of incompetent teachers or tyrannical lords. He is also thinking of permanent disciples who do not leave their teacher, just as the slaves remain their lord’s own. “As” their teacher or lord (ἑς) does not, of course, refer to equality, which the very terms shut out, but to what is characteristic of the teacher or the lord.

One who knows the disciple or the slave will be able to notice to whom they belong. In the second clause ὁδοῦλος is a nominative which is construed without reference to ἀρκετόν which requires the dative. The ἵνα clause does not express purpose but is a nominative clause in apposition with ἀρκετόν, R. 992. The reference to our relation to Jesus is again transparent, Phil. 2:5; Matt. 11:29; John 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:21; 1 John 2:6. He is “the head over all things to the church,” Eph. 1:22; ye are to “grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ,” Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18; in fact, “we are members of his body,” Eph. 5:30; Col. 3:11.

After the principle has been laid down and elucidated, Jesus makes the application. If they called the Houselord Beelzebul, how much more those of the house? The condition is one of reality: they have actually gone that far. If they did this to Jesus, would they not much more readily do it to the disciples? So these experiences are only to be expected. When Jesus refers to himself as “the Houselord” he takes up the idea of “lord” and “slave” found in the preceding, hence also the disciples are the οἰκιακοί, “those of the house.” The most vicious slander the Pharisees directed against Jeus is that they called him “Beelzebul,” referring to instances such as are recorded in 9:34; 12:24 (John 8:48), where he was virtually called this, or to others not recorded, where the epithet was directly applied.

The derivation of “Beelzebul” has not as yet been cleared up, the term not being found in the old Jewish literature. It is thought to mean “Lord of the dwelling” and was used as a designation for Satan. Beelzebub was the name for the Philistine god Baal, to whom Ahaziah applied to cast out his disease. In some manner, at which linguists thus far only guess, the Jews adopted it as a vile term for Satan. Some think they corrupted it to “Beelzebul,” “Baal of flies” and thus “Baal of dung”; but this is not certain, being, perhaps, due only to pronunciation. That Jesus intends to indicate a correspondence in meaning between “Houselord” and “Lord of the dwelling” has not as yet been convincingly established.

The Jews called Jesus a devil’s name because he drove out devils; and Jesus says that they will treat his disciples in the same way and with less hesitation.

Matthew 10:26

26 Therefore, do not be afraid of them; for nothing is covered that shall not be revealed; and secret that shall not be known. With οὖν Jesus draws the conclusion from what he has just said about himself and their relation to him, and that conclusion is that the disciples are not to fear. Only because they are “those of his house” will they be mistreated, only because they share his higher lot. If anyone is to fear, it would be Jesus. Because the matter is entirely in his hands who knows no fear, they, too, are not to begin to be afraid; this is the force of the negative aorist imperative, R. 852.

While οὖν reaches back, γάρ looks forward: everything will be absolutely exposed. Note the parallelism and the rhythmic repetition in the two clauses. There is a similar parallelism in v. 24. The perfect passive participle κεκαλυμμένον, “has been and thus is now covered,” has exactly the same sense as the adjective κρυπτόν, which is the predicate after the copula. Whether it is actually covered up and kept so or profoundly secret in the first place, whatever it may be, it will be revealed and uncovered, will become known everywhere. The statement is general and here refers both to the enemies of Christ and all their secrets and to the disciples and the blessed gospel secret. Everything shall come to light, so do not have the least fear either that you shall fail, or that they shall succeed.

Matthew 10:27

27 In regard to the secret of the gospel Jesus adds: What I say to you in the darkness, say in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops. What is told in the darkness is the same as what is covered; and what is whispered into the ear is, of course, secret. Much of Christ’s instruction was given in private. He often took his disciples aside, and they asked him many things in private. Some things he asked them to keep to themselves for the time being because they could not yet fully understand and were thus not yet fit to tell them. In due time they would be called on to make them public.

Nor will the hostile efforts of men be able to prevent their publication. The gospel cannot be suppressed. The disciples are to understand this thoroughly from the very start and are thus to speak out fearlessly, holding nothing back. The fiat Oriental housetops were ideal pulpits from which to shout out news to the crowds standing in the street beneath; κηρύσσειν == “to proclaim as a κῆρυξ or herald.” The two imperatives are peremptory aorists.

Matthew 10:28

28 “Do this,” Jesus says, And do not be afraid of those that kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; but be afraid rather of him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. The command not to be afraid is repeated, the reason for fearlessness being woven into the object of the verb. First, be not afraid, the gospel will not be suppressed; secondly, be not afraid, men can kill only the body. Here φοβέομαι is used with ἀπό, indicating a fear that causes one to flee from what is feared; but see R. 577. Jesus minces no words when he calls the foes of the disciples “them that kill the body,” nor should we underrate what this means. Think of Stephen, the first martyr.

Bodily death has caused many to fear and to deny Christ and the gopel. Yet this is the limit of the power of hostile men: they can murder the body but they cannot touch the soul. To lose the body is to lose little, to lose the soul is to lose all. Here ψυχή is in contrast with σῶμα and hence does not mean merely “life” but what the English calls “soul,” the seat and bearer of the spiritual life; and thus in substance it is the same as the πνεῦμα.

Jesus knows that it is not enough for so many who are of little faith (8:26) to point to the causelessness of fear; he must apply stronger medicine and by the fear of God drive out the fear of men. “He who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” is not the devil who is merely one of the foes not to be feared but to be resisted, when also he will flee from us, 1 Pet. 5:9. It is God who is referred to. God in his omnipotent power and his absolute justice. Some texts have the present imperative φοβεῖσθε, “keep fearing,” instead of the aorist which may be regarded as constative. Beyond question this verb has the same meaning throughout these repetitions: “to be afraid” or thoroughly scared. This is not childlike fear, the motive of filial obedience, but the terrifying fear of God’s holy, burning wrath which would have to strike us if we yielded to the fear of men and denied his Word and his will, Ps. 90:11; Matt. 3:7.

This is the fear which really belongs to the enemies of God and of Christ, the fear from which they try to hide by their self-deceptions, which yet will at last overwhelm them. It is really not to touch the disciple’s heart save as a last extremity when nothing else will keep him true. What Jesus says is this: “If the disciple is going to yield to the low motive of fear, then let him be scared, not of the minor danger, but of the supreme danger.” The sound sense and the logic of this word are beyond question. On Gehenna as a designation for hell, the place of the damned, see 5:22. “Soul and body in Gehenna” implies the bodily resurrection of the damned.

Matthew 10:29

29 God’s special providence regarding Christ’s disciples is the third reason why they should be without fear. Are not two sparrows sold for an as? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. Of course, it takes two little sparrows to bring in one little assarion or as (the two words are really diminutive), the tenth part of a drachma, about one cent. So cheap they are when they are sold for meat; ἀσσαρίου is the genitive of price. Beside this fact Jesus places the other (καί) that not a single one of them (partitive ἐκ, R. 515) shall fall on the ground, i.e., lose its life by being shot or caught, except by the will and the permission of “your Father.” So vast is his providence and care, and such little creatures it includes. “Your Father” hints at the far higher and more intimate relation of the disciples, for they are this Father’s children in Christ.

Matthew 10:30

30 From smallness outside of us Jesus advances to smallness connected with us, and at the same time he makes the smallness minute. But even your hairs of the head have all been numbered. On the average the human head has about 140, 000 hairs. Jesus says that each hair is not only counted as one but has its own number and is thus individually known and distinguished. So if any one hair is removed, God knows precisely which one it is (Luke 21:18; Acts 27:34). These illustrations exemplify the infinite extent of God’s provident care. The smaller these objects are in our eyes, and the less in value, the greater is the force of the argument when God’s own children are now mentioned.

Matthew 10:31

31 Therefore, do not be afraid. You excel many sparrows (the genitive is due to the idea of comparison). If the present imperative is used instead of the aorist, this would have the force of, “quit being afraid,” R. 853. Note the emphasis on ὑμεῖς, which emphasis is increased by its position. Will God who watches every little sparrow for one moment neglect you who, to use an understatement, excel in value to him any number of sparrows? How simple the facts here put together, and how convincing and satisfying the conclusion that results! Here absolutely every trace of fear should vanish.

Matthew 10:32

32 We have still more. From the entire preceding elaboration “therefore,” οὖν, draws the most blessed conclusion in the form of a glorious promise. Everyone, therefore, whoever shall confess me in front of men, I myself also will confess him in front of my Father in the heavens. The idea of fear is exchanged for the act which fear is likely to prevent or to modify, namely our confession of Christ in front of men. This is the cardinal act in the life of every disciple and believer, and Jesus has it in mind from the start. The ἐν used with ὁμολογεῖν is due to the Aramaic be with ’odi, R. 108, 475.

The verb really means “to say the same thing” as another, to voice agreement with him, and thus to acknowledge and to confess him. “In front of men” emphasizes the public character of this confession; and ἐνἐμοί should not be reduced in any way, since it includes Christ in the fullest sense of the term, him with all that pertains to his person, his work, and the teaching or doctrine that presents both (7:22). The fact that this confession will cost the confessor something, in some instances as much as life itself, has already been fully brought out. “In front of men” again touches upon this point.

Whoever (ὅστις) thus confesses and identifies himself with Christ, with him Christ will identify himself, him Christ will confess. The future tense refers especially to the last great day. Significantly Jesus says, not “your Father,” but “my Father,” from whom Jesus came, whose mission he is executing, to whom he will return, through whom alone we are accepted by the Father. Note the contrast: “in front of men”—“in front of my Father in the heavens.” Nothing but men who are on earth for a little while—the eternal Father in the glorious, heavenly world (Luke 12:8). Who would exchange the latter’s approval for that of the former? See how Jesus sets forth the actual realities so simply and so clearly that every sane mind must draw the right conclusion.

What a prospect to hear Jesus calling my name and confessing me as his very own before the Father, the hosts of angels, and men! Shall any persecution by men during these brief days make me forget that prospect?

Matthew 10:33

33 Yet the reverse must be added although it is implied in the positive statement. But whoever shall deny me in front of men, I myself also shall deny him in front of my Father in the heavens. In substance ὅστις with the future indicative (v. 32) is the same as ὅστιςἄν with the subjunctive; but its aorist tense sums up the life’s course of the one who denies, and ἄν adds the note of expectancy that such disciples will be found. For Jesus is here not referring to men who will ever spurn him, but to disciples who, because of men, fail to confess him. Peter denied Jesus because of fear. During the ten great persecutions many denied by sacrificing to idols or to Caesar because they feared the threats of the authorities.

Many fear to lose the favor of men and the profit and the advantages men offer them. In thousands of cases self-deception veils the secret motive, for the heart is deceitful above all things.

The consequences are terrible beyond all description. In 7:23 we have the very words with which Jesus in turn will deny those who denied him. Confusion, dismay, consternation, eternal misery will overwhelm them. Would to God that the warning might strike home in all disciples and doubly in the pastors who are to lead others!

Matthew 10:34

34 Jesus now advances to the real cause which produces all this hostility of men and necessitates all these admonitions not to be afraid of them. This the Twelve must thoroughly understand in order that proper intelligence may fortify their fearless courage and their trust. Do not imagine that I came to throw peace upon the earth; I came not to throw peace but a sword. Do not for a moment imagine this! The implication in the tense of the imperative is that the Twelve might conceive this to be the purpose of Christ’s coming. Was he not the Prince of peace, his church the haven of peace, his greeting “Peace to you!” and his apostles the bearers of peace (v. 12, 13)?

All this was true, indeed. But “upon the earth” takes in the world of men, and the effect of Christ’s coming which, of course, means his mission is the opposite of “peace,” namely war as symbolized by “a sword.” By this contrast, in this connection εἰρήνη is peace in the sense of harmony, an undisturbed condition. Compare Luke 12:51, where “division” expounds “a sword.” The idea is this: if Christ had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and its guilt until the day of its doom. Now Christ came to take away that sin and that guilt. At once war resulted, for in their perversion men clung to their sin, fought Christ and the gospel, and thus produced two hostile camps. Christ foresaw this effect and willed it.

Emphatically he declared that he came to throw a sword on the earth. Better the war and the division, saving as many as possible, than to let all perish in their sin.

Matthew 10:35

35 With γάρ Jesus elucidates. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law agaist her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes those of his own house. Concretely Jesus describes the worst feature of what “sword” or “division” (Luke 12:51) means: the rending of intimate family ties. Compare Luke 12:52, 53, where the number of persons is mentioned as being “five.” The family instanced consists of father and mother, a married son and his wife, and an unmarried daughter. According to Oriental custom the son would bring his wife to live in his father’s home. The daughter is still unmarried and at home, for after marrying, she would live with her husband’s people and no longer be at home.

The verb, διχάζω, from δίχα, “intwo,” means, “to cleave asunder” (R. 581), and κατά adds the idea of opposition, “down on” and thus “against” (R. 607). The division is one of opposition, v. 21. Luke 12:53 does not define the sides, but in Matthew “a man down on his father,” etc., seems to indicate that the son is down on his father for embracing Christ, the daughter down on her mother for the same reason, and also that the daughter-in-law takes sides. Of course, this is only a sample; another division may also be possible.

Matthew 10:36

36 For the real point of the example is the fact that the members of one’s own family (οἰκιακοί, as in v. 25) will become his ἐχθροί, his personal enemies. In v. 35, 36 Jesus appropriates Micah 7:6, using a free rendering into Greek although retaining the relationships expressed by the prophet. Jesus does not quote, he only appropriates for his own purpose, which is different from that of the prophet.

Matthew 10:37

37 The great danger lying in these family strains is that natural affection will triumph. Hence the warning: He that has affection for father or mother more than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has affection for son or daughter more than for me is not worthy of me. The two statements are exactly parallel. No matter to whom the conflict comes, child or parent, the issue is the same. The proper verb is φιλεῖν which denotes natural affection as distinct from ἀγαπᾶν, the love of intelligence and purpose (see 5:44). We are to have both types of attachment to Jesus (John 21:15–17; 15:14, 15, φίλοι).

Since natural affection is involved in the case of close relatives, and not ἀγάπη as distinct from that, it is retained in this comparison which involves Christ. The idea, then, is: if one does not have enough of even the lower form of love for Jesus to outweigh his attachment to his family, he is not worthy to be counted as a disciple. On the use of ὑπέρ with the accusative with the idea of comparison in the sense of “above,” “beyond,” and thus “more than,” see R. 633. Ἄξιος (v. 11, 12) refers to equality of weight or value. To be “worthy” of Jesus is to balance the scales with him. Yet our affection for him does not give us such moral value; quite the contrary. When we would rather forsake all our relatives than him we declare that he is more to us than they are.

In other words, our need of him exceeds all our other needs. When our realized emptiness balances his fulness we are “worthy.”

Matthew 10:38

38 First, the one influence that would draw us away from Christ; then, the other that would repel us from Christ. And he who does not receive his cross and follow behind me is not worthy of me. So precious is Christ to be to us that no suffering or shame should ever be able to repel us from him. The figurative language is taken from the established custom that the condemned had to bear their own cross out to the place of execution. The fact that receiving the cross is to be understood figuratively appears from the added verb “follow behind me,” both verbs being construed with the one οὐ, and the second being the regular verb to express permanent attachment to Jesus. What is referred to is faithful adherence to Christ in spite of any, even the worst persecution.

In view of what we know about the actual death of Jesus we may say that on this account he chose this figure of the Roman mode of execution, although there is no intimation in the wording itself that this is his thought. If “follow behind me” is added to the figure, we should have only the extension: go to crucifixion in company with me. Yet the whole would remain figurative, for as far as the Twelve are concerned, we know that only Peter was actually crucified, and that John died a natural death. Ἄξιος has the same meaning it had in v. 37. Fear of suffering and shame would prove us unworthy by revealing that our need of Christ does not balance the value of Christ.

Also the critics admit that Jesus used the illustration of taking up the cross, together with finding and losing one’s soul, more than once; compare 16:24, 25; Mark 8:34, 35, and Luke 9:23, 24, where all the people are present. It is, therefore, unwarranted to say that the reference to the cross was not spoken by Jesus when he commissioned the Twelve but was introduced into this discourse by Matthew on the basis of a later saying of Jesus.

Matthew 10:39

39 A striking, highly paradoxical, literal statement makes plain the matter of the cross and of our worthiness. He who finds his life shall lose it; and he who loses his life on my account shall find it. All translations are inadequate. In the first place, the two substantivized aorist participles do not express time as do the relative clauses of the translation. Note in the R. V. and the margin the wavering between “findeth” and “found,” “loseth” and “lost.” The participles express only actuality, the fact of the actions; thus, “the finder of his life,” “the loser of his life.” R. 1111, etc. The main verbs which are in the future tense tell what follows the moment the life is found or is lost.

In the second place, ψυχή is neither exactly the English “life” or “soul” although we must choose the one or the other when translating (R. V. and margin, again wavering). We get little help from the observation that in the Semitic nephesh is used for the reflexive “himself” and yet is translated ψυχή in the Greek: “he that finds (loses) himself.” Nobody knows whether Jesus here used nephesh or whether he used it in this sense. We can be sure only in the case of certain quotations from the Hebrew. Now ψυχή, as in the present connection, faces in two directions: it animates the body (in fact, it always refers to the body) and yet contains the ἐγώ and the πνεῦμα and is like the English “soul” and may be controlled by the spirit. Thus the two statements of Jesus become plain.

The finder of his ψυχή is the one who, frightened at the prospect of bodily suffering and death (the cross, v. 38), succeeds in warding off the latter by denying Christ. The loser of his ψυχή succeeds in doing the very opposite. In both cases the ψυχή is at stake but only as it is related to the body, bodily suffering, loss, death: in the one instance, to preserve the ψυχή from these, in the other, to yield the ψυχή to them. And now the paradox: although it is found in one way, sheltered, and kept from suffering, the ψυχή will be lost in another much more terrible way, ἀπολέσει, lost so as to perish forever. By following the physical, fleshly promptings it gains nothing higher than what these aspire to. The reverse is likewise true: although it is actually lost by being abandoned to suffering, perhaps even to death for Christ’s sake (or the gospel’s, Mark 8:35), by placing him above every temporal interest the ψυχή will be found in a vastly higher way.

By disregarding the fleshly promptings, by responding to those of Christ, by losing what the former offer, all that the latter assure are gained. The two future tenses of the verbs need not be dated on the judgment day. “Shall lose,” “shall find” after he finds, after he loses. Compare Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 160, etc. Thus the division Christ came to bring on the earth (v. 34) is fully elucidated.

Matthew 10:40

40 While the prospect the Twelve must face in their mission through life is dark, it is by no means entirely so. The inaugural address ends with the note of success. He who receives you, me he receives; and he who receives me, receives him that commissioned me. The two substantivized present participles are durative though timeless. They picture, not a single act, but a course of action, a receiving that goes on and on. The aorist τὸνἀποστείλαντάμε indicates the single act by which the Father sent Jesus into the world.

Jesus constantly called his Father his Commissioner or his Sender. Note how Jesus combines himself with the Twelve: he was commissioned, they are commissioned (hence “apostles”), John 17:18; 20:21. This is the basis for what he now says. Some to whom the Twelve come will, indeed, “receive” them, i.e., hear their words (v. 14) in true faith and therefore make them welcome in every way. By so doing they will receive Jesus himself as well as the Father himself. For Jesus, commissioned by the Father, represents him, and the apostles, commissioned by Jesus, represent him.

To receive Jesus and the Father means to take them into the heart and the life, to find the ψυχή with a finding that is eternal blessedness. The opposite of this statement is here left unexpressed.

Matthew 10:41

41 This matter of receiving the Twelve (ὑμᾶς) in the way in which they ought to be received rests on a general principle, one which refers to all prophets and, in fact, to all who are righteous. He who receives a prophet in a prophet’s name, a prophet’s reward shall receive; and he who receives a righteous one in a righteous one’s name, a righteous one’s reward shall receive. In the case of Jesus and his Father this is the general principle. Its statement brings out what receiving me and what receiving my Commissioner means (v. 40). When, by receiving the apostles, a man receives (welcomes, entertains, etc.) Jesus and the Father, this means that by his act he will share in whatever reward the apostles shall receive. Nor need it be a prophet, one who is immediately and especially commissioned, that is thus received.

It may be only a true believer, an ordinary disciple (v. 42), one of the followers of Jesus who is here called δίκαιος in relation to προφήτης. The task of all the Old Testament prophets was to make Israel “righteous.” This is now the work of Jesus, of his apostles and of all ministers. But this must be a better righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharis sees (5:20), one that obtains God’s verdict in its favor at his judgment bar.

Thus to the prophet is added a follower of the prophet. What is true of him who brings God’s Word is true of him who believes and accepts God’s Word that is thus brought. Each has his μισθός, “pay,” “reward.” God’s blessing rests upon him. We may take any of the Old Testament prophets as an example. God always acknowledged them as his own, was ever with them in their work, and showed this in a thousand ways. The same is true of the righteous, whose blessings are sung throughout the Old Testament. We may think of Zacharias and Elizabeth, of Simeon and of Anna. This μισθός was always one of pure grace, beyond any merit of their own, as generous as the great Lord God whom they served. Compare especially 19:28, 29; also in the parables Luke 19:17, 19; Matt. 25:21, 23.

These righteous should not be referred to as die grossen Heiligen, nor should it be said of those who receive them that they tried to realize this ideal in themselves. No legalistic taint should he introduced into the term. Theirs is the gospel righteousness of true faith in the Messiah not the righteousness of works after which the scribes and Pharisees (ancient and modern) strove. We have beautiful examples of receiving “one righteous” in the history of the early church. Wherever believers travelled they received open hospitality in the homes of believers. This was true of the reception of the apostles in their travels and of their assistants likewise. It extended also to others (Acts 28:2, 7–10).

The point of the reception of which Jesus speaks lies in the phrases, “in a prophet’s name,” “in a righteous one’s name.” Here εἰς is quite the same as ἐν would be, R. 593, and all that the newer grammars present on this point. The preposition is merely locative, R. 525, and ὄνομα “brings out the notion that one has the name or character of prophet, righteous man, disciple,” R. 649. The effort of B.-P. 910, second column, to regard εἰς as distinct from ἐν by referring to the rabbinic lesḥem and translating in Ruecksicht auf den Namen, is due to the older conceptions which will not accept the idea that in the Koine εἰς has heavily invaded the territory of ἐν. The phrase means, “in the name.” The reception takes place in the sphere marked by the name (prophet, one righteous). The prophet comes as a prophet, the righteous one (disciple, v. 42) also comes as such; and each is so received. This reception, as it were, joins together the person receiving and the person received, and thus the great blessing of the latter flows over also to the former.

No, the Twelve and all believers are not beggars. What they carry with them and what flows out from them is of wondrous value. They give more than they receive and do this in accordance with v. 8 (last clause).

Matthew 10:42

42 And whoever shall cause one of these little ones to drink only a cup of cold water in a disciple’s name, amen, I say to you (see 5:18), in no way shall he lose his reward. The seal of truth and of authority marks this assurance as a climax. This least act of kindness is thus combined with only a single disciple (ἕνα) from among the least important of them all. On these services compare Heb. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5:10. The verb ποτίζω is causative and hence has two accusative objects, R. 484: “cause one to drink a cup”; with ψυχροῦ supply ὕδατος. The fact that Jesus is speaking of the disciples, which, of course, includes the apostles, the emphatic phrase, “in a disciple’s name,” shows.

The genitive “of these little ones” is not spoken with reference to the world’s judgment, nor with reference to the great Old Testament prophets, but as in 25:40: “one of the least of these my brethren.” In 25:40 we also see why even a cool drink (25:37) is rated so highly by Jesus: “Ye have done it unto me.” Some of the disciples will not be prominent, even as far as faith and works of faith are concerned. Yet they are disciples, and whoever renders them the least service in connection with their discipleship, recognizing that they are believers in Jesus although among the very least, shall have his reward. The οὐμή with the subjunctive or the future indicative is the strongest type of negation: “by no means shall he lose his reward.” The fact that this μισθός is the same as that mentioned in v. 41 is evident. The εἰς phrase has the same force. It is not the magnitude of the service that determines the size or the reward but the motive and its appreciation by the Lord. Into the sphere of this humble disciple the act of service places him who performs it “in a disciple’s name”; hence the blessing includes also him.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.