Kingdom Authority and Activity in

the Sending of the Twelve

Matthew 10:1-15

Matt Marino

Professor Glodo

Gospels

August 12, 2016

Marino !1
 New Testament scholars of all stripes would agree that the kingdom is an overarching

theme in Matthews Gospel. Unity of opinion tends to break down after that. What does

Jesus make essential to the kingdom? Who makes up the kingdom? Is it here now or only in

the new heavens and new earth? If it is here now, what does one do with it? Is there any con-

tinuity between the church of the first century and that of the twenty-first century? In other

words, should we be doing what they were doing? Why do the Gospels repeatedly tell us

that Jesus and his followers were to preach a gospel of the kingdom? How is this kingdom in

any sense good news?

Matthew 10:1-15 is really a neglected passage in the formation of any answer to these

questions. I propose that Matthews use of both the commission of the apostles by Jesus,

and the instructions about the mission, goes a long way toward providing a basis for answer-

ing all of our above questions. Now we will have to work with a convergence of various con-

texts to see this: the background of Matthew, the texts literary features, and the redemp-

tive-historical elements that find a passage-way here from promise in the Old to fulfillment

in the New. As we will discover, Jesus gives defining description for the legitimate authority

and legitimate activity of his kingdom in this commissioning of the Twelve.

Background Analysis

A few words about the Gospel itself will be useful. The disciple of Jesus, named

Matthew, wrote this narrative sometime in the 60s AD, likely from Palestine and certainly

to a Jewish audience. Critical scholarship will object to such an early date. Interestingly they

will do so because of something that is featured even in this very passage. They cannot allow

that 10:1-42 is an original literary unit.1 Verses 16-42 must have been a redaction from a later

1 cf. Hendriksen (447-49), Beare (2), Morosco (325-26) for a detailed discussion of this point.

Marino !2
author. Their rationale is rooted in the same naturalistic bias that demands a later date of

the Olivet Discourse. Since martyrdom was predicted of the disciples hereas the detruc-

tion of Jerusalem was predicted thereand since predictive prophecy is out of court, it fol-

lows that these portions of Matthew could not have been written by the author in the gen-

eration that Jesus walked the earth. That is a summary of their approach. Naturalistic pre-

suppositions notwithstanding, the early date and Matthean authorship are well established.

There are legitimate textual questions. Scholars committed to biblical inerrancy can

piece together the following: 9:35-11:1 is generally seen to be a composite unit, arranged by

the First Evangelist out of diverse materials, however, There is as yet no agreement about

the structure of Matt. 10 (Talbert, 128). The disciples were sent two by two (Mk. 6:7).2

Matthew omits, or neglects, this detail. More strikingly Matthew omits anything of how

they fared. Is any of this a problem? Not at all. The more we examine the dierences be-

tween the Synoptics with an appreciation for multiperspectives, the more we begin to see a

divinely designed approach.

Parallel passages (Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 9:1-6) are both shorter than Matthews ac-

count. Mark and Luke give accounts of Jesus selecting the twelve. That is not happening here.

Matthew focuses only on the commissioning of the twelve. Hendriksen favors Luke as the giv-

er of chronology (cf. 6:12, 13, 20), adding that the time of the choosing of the Twelve was

just previous to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mark 3:13, 14) (449).

Matthew is taking that detail for granted and included it in the event of Jesus sending them

out on a mission tour (449). The one-dimensional-critical eye thinks that chronology and

2 ESV throughout unless otherwise indicated

Marino !3
maximalization of unity in details is the whole point of writing. But why should we accept

this modernist perspective?

As a matter of fact, there is something paradigmatic about Matthews emphasis of

the commission. One scholar counts nearly 100 lines of Greek text (as found in the UBS-

GNT) as compared with 13.5 lines in Mark and 12 lines in Luke (Morosco, 324). Most of the

commentators agree that Matthew pulled together material without respect to chronology.

That argues for a systematic approach. Morosco oers that, Matthew seems to have oper-

ated on the principle of a thematic arrangement of sayings material. The unifying theme in

this case is that of missiology (328). That is one way to say what I am driving at. Matthews

choice of angle is a doctrine of the kingdom, particularly with regard to the nature of its au-

thority and activity.

Hendriksen points out that the background material begins at 9:35-38 (447). The

connection is clear. The laborers in Gods harvest are few. Consequently Jesus begins to draw

forth the structure and the motion of his labor force.

For our text, the immediate first century scene will be of more help to us than either

the ancient Jewish or Greek realms of ideas. There are a few cultural practices with which

we should be familiar. The practice of scribes searching for teaching opportunities and de-

pending on local hospitality was normal (cf. Watson, 312). That will make a lot more sense of

the instructions on how to relate to those households that entertain the disciples on their

mission.

There is also context concerning their attire. The belt referred to a long cloth

wrapped around the waste several times, in which one would fold money (Talbert, 130).

Marino !4
Note that in verse 9 there are three kinds of coin for your belt. Hold that thought and that

picture.

To the modern mind unbelieving critics as well as genuine believers struggling to

see the relevance of such instructions the cultural background can illuminate qualities of

this mission that are not so confined to the first century after all. Take the connection be-

tween the restrictions Jesus puts on their travel wardrobe and the freedom He gives to their

itinerary. The obvious value set forth is simplicity. Further down we will also see the value of

purity emerge. Begin with the simplicity dimension. Aquire no gold,

nor silver, nor copper (v. 9), says Jesus. These were the standard metals of Roman coinage

in their order of value. The verb Aquire seems to signify no new purchases. He is not say-

ing to have nothing. The value is utter simplicity and freedom to move for the kingdom.

The value is not an immobilizing poverty that makes one useless. So Jesus is not saying to

have none of these things with you: i. e. to walk naked and barefoot. It would be reasonable

to conclude from this that Jesus is also highlighting dependence on God to supply all of the

missionarys needs. This context is also important to grasp when harmonizing Matthews

account with the other Synoptics.3

There is a second value noted by commentators. When the apostles settle into a vil-

lage to deliver their message to households, Jesus instructs them to stay there until you

depart (v. 11). Chilton says that the significance of this has to do with purity (cf. Chilton,

877). That is the purity concerned in the ceremonial law. Whatever the owners of the house

served was to be considered automatically clean. This was a way for them to live out the

3 Poythress chapter on Commissioning the Twelve (149-154), complete with comparison chart and analysis of
Matthews use of aquire () versus Marks use of take (), comprises a sufficient refutation of the
suspicion of contradiction between the amount of sandals they were to take none or extra.

Marino !5
truth that Jesus had declared all foods clean (cf. Mk. 7:18-19, Acts 10:15). And even the com-

mand to not take those basic items back in verses 9 and 10, Chilton sees as a purity state-

ment: But if we understand the commission to treat every village they might enter as clean,

as purely Israel as the temple itself, the perplexing structure of the commission makes emi-

nent sense (Chilton, 878).

There is another kind of purity that is at stake here the purity of integrity in their

task as another commentator puts it: The message of the kingdom is not for

sale (Turner, 271). The idea is that this is the chief aim in the admonition to give without

pay (v. 8). The kind of missionary lifestyle instituted by Jesus protects one from bribery. On

the other hand the gospel preachers simplicity and the churchs hospitality are expected to

come together cf. Deut. 25:4, 1 Cor. 9:3-12, Gal. 6:6, 1 Thess. 2:9, 1 Tim. 5:17-18 and this

charge of Jesus anticipates them both.

One more piece of the puzzle must set our background for how these disciples un-

derstood the instructions being given to them at that time. Was the inquiry into who in it

is worthy (v. 11) primarily about ordinary Near Eastern hospitality? Or was it about gospel

receptivity? Clearly it was the latter, as evidenced by the reaction that Jesus says is proper.

The expression shake the dust from your feet (v. 14) speaks of a dramatic gesture of

repudiation still in use in the Middle East (France, 1985, 185). The judgment this evidences

cannot be due to poor hospitality, but rather points to the evil of rejecting so great a trea-

sure as the kingdom.

One more background element that I think can be gleaned regards the biggest oppo-

sition these apostles will face: namely the demons. What is the meaning of the adjective in

the unclean spirits (1)? Hendriksen suggests that it is because not only are these spirits

Marino !6
themselves filthy but among men they are also the instigators of filthy thoughts, words, and

deeds (449).

Literary Analysis

We should begin by listing the characters and putting them all in their order of im-

portance. Of course that begins with Jesus. The King gets to define the kingdom by his own

words and works. And it would seem important to Jesus to make much of an authority

structure in this age. That is what translates these disciples into apostles.

The parallel identities, twelve disciples (1) twelve apostles (2), are obviously

the same roster. The question is Matthews design in using both words so close together.

The most obvious explanation is for the reader to equate the two one being their school-

ing stage and the other their ultimate oce. Matthews phrase twelve apostles has support

from another New Testament author, John, in Revelation 21:14.

Some will closely examine the order of the apostles names in the various New Tes-

tament lists (cf. Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, and the eleven in Acts 1:13), or else the variant

descriptions of the second Simon and Lukes Judas where the others have Thaddeus (Morris,

244). Whatever may be gained from such a study, it exceeds the boundaries of our question.

What does have weight is that in all four lists of the apostles in the New Testament, Peter

comes first and Judas Iscariot comes last. As we will see, order communicates something of

authority and legitimacy. Of the inner circle, France says, it is probable that all except Ju-

das Iscariot (if his name means man of Kerioth) were from Galilee (France, 1995, 567).

The number of disciples, twelve, is undoubtedly based on the number of tribes of

Israel in OT times (cf. 19:28). Jesus is reconstituting Gods covenant community among his

Marino !7
followers (Carson & Beale, 35). France is equally confident about this allusion (180). We will

have to hold this though for the moment until we come to redemptive-historical signifi-

cance.

Another character group was the Samaritans, who are equated with Galileans in

Johns Gospel near neighbors up in northern Israel (Anderson, 1055). This is Matthews

lone mention of them. Why do the Samaritans stand out at this point?

Jesus thought it worth distinguishing the Samaritans as a third category, beyond sim-

ply the Jew and Gentile. This third category was apparently widespread. It essentially

amounted to half-breed, as even Jospehus alternated between considering the

Samaritans fellow countrymen and foreigners (Ferguson, 534).

With the characters established we move on to the plot. The first way to do that is to identi-

fy the basic structure of the passage. The whole of 10:1-15 belongs to the narrative genre.

However we can be more specific as to sub-genre. We will notice that vv. 1-5a is spoken in

the third person by the author. We can call it simply the narrative. Then vv. 5b-15 is spoken

in the second person by Jesus. This is the discourse, or instructions. We may also zoom out

our literary lens, as Keener does, and classify the tenth chapter as the second of five major

blocks of Jesus sayings (27). A stricter outline of our passage should also be constructed.

Here is one possibility:

I. The authority and nature of the mission (1)

II. The names of the apostles (2-4)

III. The target audience of the kingdom mission (5-7)

IV. The life of the kingdom mission (8-15)

A. Their lifestyle (8-12) or how they are to be supported

B. What to do with their responses (13-14)

Marino !8
 C. The outcome of those who reject (15)

If we want to be concise, we could divide the whole text into (I) Commission (1-4)

and (II) Mission (5-15). Hendriksen divides the mission intruction section into: (1) where

they should go, (2) what they have to proclaim, (3) what they must do, (4) in what condition

they are to set out on their tour, and (5) with whom they must lodge (cf. 447). And yet what

follows, all the way to verse 42, may be classified as the charge.

What literary devices are employed by Matthew to give shape to this teaching? A

pairing of similes are used. Jesus calls the lost of Israel sheep (v. 6), but then in the follow-

ing pericope He refers to the disciples as sheep in the midst of wolves (v. 16). This is no

more problematic than the mixing of metaphors already at the end of Chapter 9. The whole

reason that more workers are needed is because the demand of souls to be harvested far ex-

ceeds the supply of gospel preachers. This crop had just been referred to as a flock of sheep

in the sentence before. Morosco points to a more puzzling feature: the seeming contrast

between the lush and ready harvest described in 9:37-38 and the stress on the terrible resis-

tance to the mission in 10:16-22 (325).

Israel functions as an inclusio (v. 6 / v. 23) if you want to see what is included in be-

tween as a summary of the disciples exclusive mission to the Jews. If that is the case, then

the pair of sendings (v. 5 / v. 16) form the imperative (Go) and indicative (I send you) head-

ings.

The final piece of our literary analysis is Matthews use of a few words: apostles, au-

thority, and instructing. We have already noted the designation apostles (), or

sent ones. It is the oce into which the disciples would grow. However its meaning sug-

gests that, in an embryonic sense, they are right at this point apostles. Ridderbos argues that

Marino !9
this word must first be approached from the juridical sphere. It denotes an ambassador

with a special mission who acts on behalf of a person, represents him and has been given full

powers and authority for this purpose (370). So Matthew presents these new disciples as

Israels new leaders (Turner, 264). Hendriksen agrees that this is the intended allusion (449).

Matthew is the only New Testament writer to say the twelve disciples (11:1; 20:17; 26:20),

though there are quite a few references to the twelve. (Morris, 242). That means that they

are the churchs first leaders, and that makes us wonder what function such a list had by the

time Matthew wrote. The reference to authority with power seems to perform a legitimizing

function for this church hierarchy, just as other kinds of references to the disciples and

kingdom do: cf. 16:28, 19:28, 21:43.

The word for authority () is especially important in this setting. This same

Greek word can mean either authority or power. However the kind of power it entails is not

brute force, but legitimate force. We might think of Nehemiah making the journey back to

Jerusalem with the sealed papers of the Persian monarch. Put together it is power plus the

right to exercise it (Hendriksen, 449). So the works of those who are sent by King Jesus

have this same tendency to authenticate their right to be heard. Morris says the word for

instructing () carries a military ring about it (245). We have already seen

how this sending forth (apostellein) has the King-to-royal-ambassador connotation. So this

is really another link in the chain to see that Matthew has establishing authority as his

agenda here.

Marino !10
 Redemptive-Historical Analysis

Matthew had already told us about the calling of five disciples (cf. 4:18-22, 9:9). The

purpose of listing all twelve together here is dierent. In the first place there is a transition

from disciples to apostles. That is significant to the issue of kingdom authority. We have to

understand the Gospel of Matthew as giving us a doctrine of the kingdom.4 I am not sug -

gesting that this is all that the author has in view, but it is primary.

In Matthew 8 and 9 Jesus is shown performing ten miracles of the types expected to

occur in the messianic age (Talbert, 128). This is what He is passing on to his apostles.

That Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to

heal every disease and every affliction (1) is an extention of the kingdom by representa-

tives. The point is not to suggest that signs are normative, but rather, by these signs, to make

their substance normative. One commentator maintains that it is authority for the apostolic

mission that is in mind and not an authority for government of the church (Bonnard, quot-

ed by Morris, 242). However such an inference seems to create two doctrinal problems: (1) it

separates missiology from ecclesiology; (2) it may also suggest that signs ought to be norma-

tive for the whole church age. Both are problems in the contemporary church. My focus,

however, is exegetical. What warrant is there in the text, or any amount of context, to sever

authority for apostolic mission and authority of the apostolic church? Some norm is being

handed to the church here. If it is not the apostolic signs, then what? We should ask it in

this way: What is the substance to which these signs point? The answer will be a synonym for

kingdom activity.

4 Keener summarizes the whole treatment of the kingdom by Matthew in the following way: Matthew explains the
ethics of the kingdom (Mt 5-7), relationships in the kingdom (13), and the presence (13) and future (23-25) of the
kingdom; but he does so to disciples whom he expects to further propogate the message of the kingdom (10) (198).

Marino !11
 The King and his representatives alike start exclusively with the lost sheep of Israel

(cf. Matt. 15:24) - both sayings being from Matthew. The order of the Jew first and also to

the Greek finds expression elsewhere (cf. Acts 13:46, Rom. 1:16, 2:9-10), but Matthew tells

us most about the redemptive-historical reasons. Gathering of the lost sheep of Israels

house (10:6) may refer to Jer. 50:6 (see also Isa. 53:6; Ezek. 34) (Carson & Beale, 35). There

was a priority given to ethnic Israel in redemptive history. That it was a temporary phase is

made clear by Jesus words further down, that they would bear witness [to] the

Gentiles (v. 18).

The core of the mission comes in the present imperative (Morris, 246), namely to

preach (v. 7). Whatever they preached, it was something to be obeyed now and lived out in

this age. It is safe to say that this is one norm from the apostles to preachers today. As to the

content of the message itself The kingdom of heaven is at hand (7) it fulfills Isaiah

40:1-11, where the reign of God is breaking open into human history, bringing down the

mighty and exalting the humble. The NIV renders is at hand as has come near. This is

essentially the same message as John the Baptist and Jesus had preached (cf. Mat. 3:2, Mk.

1:15). We can see how Jesus is reproducing in their mission the substance of his own mission

up to this point.

Just as the Lord preached the filfillment of Jubilee in Luke 4:18-19, so these disciples

are commissioned both to preach the kingdom and to do justice for the oppressed (vv. 7-8).

Notice how the grace they received should be extended to the lowly the connection be-

tween salvation by grace and kingdom justice for the poor (v. 8b). This is the basic kingdom

activity in this age: to proclaim good news to the poor to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim

Marino !12
the year of the Lord's favor. So it seems that we are better prepared to read Matthew

10:1-15 if we have already grasped the redemptive-historical significance of Luke 4:18-19.

We may still be asking what the signs have to do with the substance of gospel preach-

ing. Of what are the casting out of demons and healing of every disease signs? Evangelical-

ism has often defended itself against theological liberalism by reducing the miraculous signs

to be either authenticating of the apostles or signifying the deeper spiritual need. No doubt

these are always in play. However these are essentially signs of the reverse of the curse. Note

the list and its order: Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out

demons (v. 8). Death is worse than sickness. But it may be argued that ceremonial un-

cleanness is worse than both. It is that by which the Jew was alienated from the assembly of

the righteous. Now leprosy is a physical ailment, yet it was the condition most associated

with one being unclean. So there is a progression in the kingdom signs: from sickness to

death to alienation from God to the most conscious enemies of God. Even if there is noth-

ing to the order, we should at least see how they go together in the kingdoms advance.

Finally we should note that the just recompense of the King in verse 15 is the ground

for their peace in verse 13 and its dramatic expression in verse 14. What is this peace (v. 13)

and how may the disciples either extend or withhold it? It must be the peace of the King

toward those who are pardoned and included. There is a kind of lesser to greater argument

being employed by Jesus. The punishment of those who reject this message is far greater

than the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is because of the greater stature of

Christ. At Sodom and Gomorrah, darkness was judged; but here in Galilee, darkness was be-

ing altogether set to retreat by light. Something greater than fire and brimstone was here.

Marino !13
 Concluding Remarks

I think it is safe to say that the Jewish reader of the first century would have under-

stood Matthew to be relaying the authoritative pattern given by Jesus for kingdom authority

and kingdom activity.

We have to set the limits to the eschatology of this passage. Morris comments that,

It was not their business to work out the solution to contemporary problems, but to sound

out the message Jesus was proclaiming (246). Agreeing with this statement means being

able to clearly define what it means to work out the solution. Does this mean that no

gospel preacher can engage in biblical ethical reasoning, or that there is none in any event?

Or does it only mean that the contemporary dimension of these problems may not be de-

fined by the unbelieving culture? All Christians should at least agree that there should be a

clear line between the specific mandate the Lord gives to ministers to preach the gospel and

the more general mandate given to the whole church to be salt and light, with everything

legitimately implied by that phrase.

Another general application is this: Jesus made himself poor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) now

you make yourselves poor. One kind of poverty is being of poor noteriety. Morris picks up

on the fact that, in spite of the fact that church history has held these men in high esteem,

very little is known about most of them; evidentially some of them were not memorable

men. If this is so, it would accord with the fact that God has often chosen people the world

has regarded as insignificant through whom to do his wonderful works (Morris, 242).

Marino !14
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Robert T., Samaritan Literature, in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds.

Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000

Beare, F. W., The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Paral-

lels, The Society of Biblical Literature 1970

Carson, D. A. and Beale, G. K. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2007

Chilton, Bruce D. Purity in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New

Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000

Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000

Ferguson, Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing

2003

France, R. T., Matthew, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1985

France, R. T., Jesus Christ, Life and Teaching Of in Marshall, I. Howard, Alan R. Millard,

J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsi-

ty Press 1996

Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the

Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1992

Hendricksen, William, Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 1973

Keener, Craig S., Matthew, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1997

Marshall, I. Howard, Alan R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, New Bible Dictionary,

3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1996

Marino !15
Morosco, Robert E., Redaction Criticism and the Evangelical: Matthew 10 a Test Case,

JETS 22/4 (December 1979) 323-331

Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing 1992

Poythress, Vern S. Inerrancy and the Gospels, Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2012

Ridderbos, Herman, The Coming of the Kingdom, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed

Publishing 1960

Talbert, Charles H., Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2010

Turner, David L. Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2008

Watson, D. F., Education: Jewish and Greco-Roman in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter,

eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000

Marino !16