Matthew 10
TFGMatthew 10:1-200
M 35-38; 1, 5-42; 1; M 6-13; L 1-6. [In the first circuit of Galilee some of the twelve accompanied Jesus as disciples . As Jesus himself was sent only to the Jews, so during his days on earth he sent his disciples only to them.] [It was set up about a year later, on the day of Pentecost, under the direction of the Holy Spirit– .] [Here is the true rule of giving. Paul repeats it at . If we would obey this rule, we would make this a happy world.] [The prohibition is against securing these things before starting, and at their own expense. It is not that they would have no need for the articles mentioned, but that “the laborer is worthy of his food,” and they were to depend on the people for whose benefit they labored, to furnish what they might need. This passage is alluded to by Paul .
To rightly understand this prohibition we must remember that the apostles were to make but a brief tour of a few weeks, and that it was among their own countrymen, among a people habitually given to hospitality; moreover, that the apostles were imbued with powers which would win for them the respect of the religious and the gratitude of the well-to-do. The special and temporary commission was, therefore, never intended as a rule under which we are to act in preaching the gospel in other ages and in other lands.] [The customs of the East gave rise to this rule.
The ceremonies and forms with which a guest was received were tedious and time-consuming vanities, while the mission of the apostles required haste.] [364] [The form of salutation on entering a house was, “Peace to this house.” The apostles are told to salute each house, and are assured that the peace prayed for shall return to them if the house is not worthy; that is, they shall receive, in this case, the blessing pronounced on the house.] [Jesus here warns them that their experiences would not always be pleasant] [The word “house” indicates a partial and the word “city” a complete rejection] [The dust of heathen lands as compared with the land of Israel was regarded as polluted and unholy . The Jew, therefore, considered himself defiled by such dust. For the apostles, therefore, to shake off the dust of any city of Israel from their clothes or feet was to place that city on a level with the cities of the heathen, and to renounce all further intercourse with it.] [For comment on similar remarks, see , , ). When an apostle stood over a sick man to heal him by a touch or a word, he was about to send him out of his sick chamber, and just before the word was spoken, the oil was applied. It was, therefore, no more than a token or symbol that the man was restored to his liberty, and was from that moment to be confined to his chamber no longer. Comp. . This practice bears about the same relation to the Romish practice of extreme unction as the Lord’s Supper does to the mass, or as a true baptism does to the sprinkling of an infant.] [FFG 362-369]
Matthew 10:2-4
(Near Capernaum.) M 2-4; M 13-19; L 12-16. [It was a momentous occasion. He was about to choose those to whom he was to entrust the planting, organizing, and training of that church which was to be the purchase of his own blood. Jesus used such important crises, not as occasions for anxiety and worry, but as fitting times to seek and obtain the Father’s grace and blessing.] [We can not think that the number twelve was adopted carelessly. It unquestionably had reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, over whom the apostles were to be tribal judges or viceroys , and we find the tribes and apostles associated together in the structure of the New Jerusalem . Moreover, Paul seems to regard the twelve as ministers to the twelve tribes, or to the circumcision, rather than as ministers to the Gentiles or the world in general . See also , .
The tribal reference was doubtless preserved to indicate that the church would be God’s new Israel] [The word apostle means “one sent.” Its meaning was kindred to the word ambassador [220] , the messenger whom a king sent to foreign powers, and also to our modern word missionary, which also means “one sent.” Christ himself was an apostle , and so sent them . The word apostle is translated “messenger” at , .
The apostles were to be with Jesus, that they might be taught by his words, and that they might become teachers of that word and witnesses as to the life and actions of Jesus. A necessary condition, therefore, to their apostleship was this seeing of Jesus and the consequent ability to testify as to his actions, especially as to his resurrection . They could therefore have no successors. All the apostles were from Galilee save Judas Iscariot] , . Peter, by reason of his early prominence, is named first in the four lists. His natural gifts gave him a personal but not an ecclesiastical pre-eminence over his fellows.
As a reward for his being first to confess Christ, he was honored by being permitted to first use the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to preach the first gospel sermon both to the Jews and Gentiles. But after these two sermons the right of preaching to the Jews and Gentiles became common to all alike.
That Peter had supremacy or authority over his brethren is nowhere stated by Christ, or claimed by Peter, or owned by the rest of the twelve. On [221] the contrary, the statement of Jesus places the apostles upon a level . See also , , , , , . And Peter himself claims no more than an equal position with other officers in the church , and the apostles in the subsequent history of the church acted with perfect independence. Paul withstood Peter to his face and (if we may judge by the order of naming which is made so much of in the apostolic lists), he ranks Peter as second in importance to James, the Lord’s brother . See also , .
Again, James, in summing up the decree which was to be sent to the church at Antioch, gave no precedence to Peter, who was then present, but said, “Brethren, hearken unto me . . . my judgment is”–words which would be invaluable to those who advocate the supremacy of Peter, if only it had been Peter who spoke them. So much for the supremacy of Peter, which, even if it could be established, would still leave the papacy without a good title to its honors, for it would still have to prove that it was heir to the rights and honors of Peter, which is something it has never yet done.
The papal claim rests not upon facts, but upon a threefold assumption: 1. That Peter had supreme authority. 2. That he was the first bishop of Rome. 3. That the peculiar powers and privileges of Peter (if he had any) passed at the time of his death from his own person, to which they belonged, to the chair or office which he vacated] [This selection of brothers suggests that the bonds of nature may strengthen those of grace. Why James and John were called sons of thunder is not stated, but it was probably because of their stormy and destructive temper . The vigor of the two brothers is apparent, for it marked James as a fit object for Herod’s spleen , and it sustained John to extreme old age, for Epiphanius says [223] that he died at Ephesus at the age of ninety-four, but Jerome places his age at a hundred.
No change is noted in the nature of James during the brief time which he survived his Lord. But the gracious and loving character of the aged John showed the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
But even to the last this son of thunder muttered in portentous strains against Diotrephes , and his denunciations of sins and sinners is very forceful, including such epithets as “liar,” “antichrist,” “deceiver,” “children of the devil” . It is also worthy of note that except in this verse in Mark, which applies the name “Son of thunder” to John, neither the word “thunder,” nor any of its derivatives is found anywhere in the New Testament save in the writings of John, by whom it and its derivatives are used eleven times, a fact which causes Bengel to remark, “A son of thunder is a fit person for hearing voices of thunder.”] [as noted on ); probably because he was younger than the son of Zebedee. He must not be confounded with James the Lord’s brother, who, though called an apostle by Paul, was not one of the twelve apostles . James the Lord’s brother is mentioned at , , , , , , . He wrote the epistle which bears his name, and his brother Jude (who also must not be confounded with Judas Thaddæus, the apostle) wrote the epistle which bears his name. We do not know the James who was the father of Judas, and of Judas himself we know very little.
He seems to have been known at first by his name Thaddæus, possibly to distinguish him from Iscariot, but later (for Luke and John wrote later than Matthew and Mark) by the name Judas– .] [Cananæan means the same as zealot. It comes from the Hebrew word kana, which means zealous.
The Zealots were a sect or order of men much like our modern “Regulators,” or “Black Caps.” They were zealous for the Jewish law, and citing Phinehas and Elijah as their examples, they took justice in their own hands and punished offenders much after the manner lynchers. It is thought that they derived their name from the dying charge of the Asmonæan Mattathias when he said, “Be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers” (I. Macc. ii. 50). Whatever they were at first, it is certain that their later course was marked by frightful excesses, and they are charged with having been the human instrument which brought about the destruction of Jerusalem. See Josephus, Wars, IV., iii. 9, v. 1-4; vi. 3; VII., viii. 1. Simon is the least known of all the apostles, being nowhere individually mentioned outside the catalogues] [Judas is named last in all the three lists, and the same note of infamy attaches to him in each case.
He is omitted from the list in Acts, for he was then dead. As he was treasurer of the apostolic group, he was probably chosen for office because of his executive ability.
He was called Iscariot from his native city Kerioth, which pertained to Judah– .]
[FFG 220-226]