The Staff: Did He Or Didn’t He?

 The Staff: Did He Or Didn’t He?

Thomas Allen

When Jesus sent out his disciples on a preaching mission, did he allow them to take a staff, or did he forbid them to take a staff? According to Mark, he allowed the disciples to take a staff. According to Matthew and Luke, he forbade them to take a staff.

Mark 6:8: “and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;”

Matthew 10:9-10: “Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.”

Luke 9:3 “And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.”

Which of the two versions of the story is correct? Both cannot be correct.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, who believes that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, claims that Mark used a different source than that used by Matthew and Luke, and this accounts for the difference between them. He argues that the writers of this story believed that the actual details were unimportant. What was important was Jesus sending his disciples to preach the Gospel. What they were told to carry or not to carry was unimportant. To the writers of this event, the event was more important than the details.

Robert Wilkins, who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, notes that in Mark Jesus allows his disciples to take a staff. However, he fails to note that according to Matthews and Luke, Jesus told them not to take a staff.

John Wesley attempts to resolve the conflict between Matthew and Mark by arguing that if a disciple had a staff, he could take it. However, if he did not already have a staff, he was not to get one and take it. (One may infer Wesley’s resolution to this conflict, but the text does not seem to imply it.)

Charles Gore acknowledges that in Mark the disciples are allowed to have a staff while in Luke they are not. He credits the discrepancy to a mistake — a failure to recollect correctly Mark’s words. In any event, the stress is on the purpose of the mission, preaching the Gospel, and not on the gear that the disciples were allowed to carry.

In The Interpreters Commentary, Howard Kee recognizes that according to Matthew, the disciples were not to carry a staff, but he fails to note the conflict with Mark. Yet, he does point out other differences between Matthew and Mark about this event. Likewise, William Baird comments that according to Luke, the disciples were not to carry a staff, and he also fails to notice the conflict with Mark. However, Lindsey Pherigo, mentions the conflict between Mark and Luke. He remarks that the purpose of taking the staff is unclear. Nevertheless, The Interpreters Commentary offers no resolution of the staff problem.

In The Abingdon Bible Commentary, J. Newton Davis states that while in Matthew the disciples were not to carry a staff, in Mark they are allowed to carry a staff, which was indispensable for a long journey. About Luke’s disagreement with Mark on the staff, J.A. Findlay believes that Luke and Matthew used Q as their source for this detail instead of using Mark. (Q is a hypothetical written collection of Jesus’ sayings.)

Adam Clarke believes that the staff forbidden in Matthew and Luke was one used for walking or defense. The staff allowed in Mark was one used to carry their clothes on if they had to remove them because of heat. (Why could not the same staff be used for walking and carrying clothes?)

In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Homer Kent resolves the disagreement between Mark and Matthew by stating that a disciple could carry a staff (in agreement with Mark) if he already had one. However, the text only weakly supports this solution if it supports it at all.

In Peake’s Commentary, H.G. Wood offers the solution of the church fathers to the staff conflict between Mark and Matthew. The staff forbidden in Matthew and Luke was ordinary while the one allowed in Mark was an apostolic wand of office.

Elizabeth Reed claims that the text in Matthew and Mark means that the disciples were to take only one staff, probably one apiece, as an aid in walking. They were not to carry several or a staff for self-defense against physical harm. (She seems to be straining the text beyond breaking. No hint is given in these texts to suggest that none means one.)

Most of the other commentaries that I consulted either followed Wilkins (noted that Mark allowed taking a staff) or failed to comment on the staff problem. They do not mention the discrepancy.

Bacchiocchi and Findlay give the most likely solution to Mark allowing a staff and Matthew and Luke forbidding a staff. Matthew and Luke used a different source than Mark used. However, the solution offered by Wesley and Kent (if they had a staff, they could take it, but if they did to have one, they were not to procure one) is a viable solution although the text only weakly supports it if at all. Anyway, this particular detail is irrelevant to the story, its importance, and the lessons that it was intended to teach.

References

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. “Biblical Errancy And Inerrancy.” Endtime Issues No. 102 – Part 2. August 19, 2003.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Gore, Charles, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928.

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors, The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Laymon, Charles M., ed., The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Peake, Arthur S., editor. A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., editor. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Reed, Mrs. H.V (Elizabeth). Bible Triumphant: Being a Reply to a Work Entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible, Published by Andrew Jackson Davis. Harvard, Illinois: H.V. Reed, 1866.

Wesley, John, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, et. al. One Volume New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1893, 1957.

Wilkin, Robert N. The Grace New Testament Commentary. Editor Robert N. Wilkin. Vol.  1. Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.