Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 10

What is described here is not the choice, but the mission of the Twelve. That selection had been made before (Luke 6:13), and the number at once suggested the thought that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) and were, as such, to be His messengers to the whole people of the dispersion. The name Apostle, which He had given them before (Luke 6:13), literally signified “one who is sent.” However, it had acquired a more specific meaning in classical Greek as the “ambassador” or “envoy” of a state. According to our Lord’s teaching, they were sent by Him, even as He had been sent by the Father (John 20:21).

All manner of sickness — See Note on Matthew 9:35. The repetition of the same words emphasizes the delegation of authority.

A comparison of the four lists of the Apostles (Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:13) reveals some interesting facts.

1. The name of Peter is always first, and that of Judas is always last. In the first case, we recognize his acknowledged preeminence. The position of Judas may have been a consequence of the infamy attached to the traitor's name. However, it is also possible that his place had always been one of inferiority, and this may have been one of the elements that contributed to his guilt.

2. All the lists divide into three groups of four. The individuals in each group are always the same (assuming the three names—Judas the brother (?) of James, Thaddaeus, and Lebbaeus—belong to the same person), though the order within each group varies.

3. The first group includes the two sons of Jona and the two sons of Zebedee, whose twofold call is described in Matthew 4:18-21 and John 1:40. In two lists (Mark and Acts), Andrew’s name stands last; in two (Matthew and Luke), John’s name is last. In none of them are the names of Peter and John paired together, as might be expected from their close companionship (John 20:2; Acts 3:1). These four obviously occupied the innermost place in the company of the Twelve and were the chosen from among the chosen.

   The three—Peter, James, and John—were the only witnesses of the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37), the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and the Agony in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37). Something seems to have excluded Andrew from this intimate companionship, even though he had been the very first to be called (John 1:40). However, we find him joined with the other three to listen to the great prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:3). All four appear to have come from Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

4. The name of Philip is always first in the second group, and he also came from Bethsaida. Next, in the three Gospel lists, comes Bartholomew. The name, like Bar-Jona and Bartimaeus, was obviously a patronymic, so it is probable that he had another name. The absence of any mention of Bartholomew in John’s Gospel, or of Nathanael (John 1:45) in the other three, has led most modern commentators to conclude that they were two names for the same person. The pairing of their names in the lists agrees with the fact that it was Philip who brought Nathanael to know Jesus as the Christ (John 1:45). On this assumption, Bartholomew was from Cana, the scene of our Lord’s first miracle (John 21:2).

   The name of Matthew stands before that of Thomas in Mark and Luke, but after it in the Gospel that bears his own name. Regarding the change of name from Levi and his description as the son of Alphaeus, see the notes on Matthew 9:9. Since the name Thomas, or Didymus, means “twin,” there seems to be some ground for believing that we have another pair of brothers called to their Master's service, based on how the two names are grouped together. Eusebius (in his Ecclesiastical History 1.13), in his account of the conversion of Abgarus of Edessa, speaks of this apostle as “Judas who is also Thomas.” This suggests why the nickname “the Twin” prevailed over the name Judas, which was already borne by two others in the company of the Twelve.

5. The third group always begins with “James the son of Alphaeus,” a description that suggests some interesting inferences:

   1. He was also a brother of Matthew (as there are no grounds for assuming two different people were named Alphaeus) and probably of Thomas as well.

   2. If the Clopas (not Cleopas) of John 19:25 was, as is generally believed, simply the less Hellenized form of the name Alphaeus, then his mother Mary may have been the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord (see the notes on John 19:25).

   3. This Mary, in turn, is identified by comparing John 19:25 with Mark 15:40 as the mother of James the Less (literally, the Little) and of Joses. The term probably pointed not to a subordinate position but, as in the case of Zacchaeus, to short stature (Luke 19:3). It appears to have been an epithet distinguishing him from the James in the first group. The Greek form in both cases was Iakobos—the Jacob of the Old Testament—which has passed, like Ioannes, through many changes until it appears in its present clipped and curtailed shape.

   4. On the assumption that the James and Joses of Mark 15:40 are two of the “brethren of the Lord” from Matthew 13:55, this James might, perhaps, be identified with the James “the brother of the Lord” of Galatians 1:19 and Acts 15:13, who was the writer of the Epistle of James. The balance of evidence, however, is decidedly against this view (compare the note on Matthew 13:55).

   The next name appears in three different forms: Judas the brother of James in Luke and Acts (it must be noted, however, that this arrangement of names is elsewhere translated “the son of...” and that the insertion of “brother” is an inference from Jude 1:1); Lebbaeus in Matthew (with the addition in later manuscripts and the Textus Receptus of “who is also surnamed Thaddaeus”); and Thaddaeus in Mark. John names him simply as “Judas, not Iscariot” (John 14:22). The explanation for these variations is natural enough: a man named Judas needed something to distinguish him. This could be found either in a term expressing his relation to James the son of Alphaeus (son or brother) or in a personal epithet.

   “Lebbaeus” suggests a derivation from the Hebrew leb (heart) and points to a warm and earnest character. The word thad, in later Hebrew, meant the female breast, and may have been the origin of “Thaddaeus,” indicating, even more than the other nickname, a feminine devotedness. Taking the three names together, they suggest that he was one of the youngest of the Twelve and was regarded by the others with an affection that showed itself in this given name.

   Simon also needed a distinguishing epithet, which was found in the two forms of Zelotes and Cananite (not Canaanite). The former may point to zeal as his chief characteristic, but it was more probably used in the sense applied to the followers of Judas of Galilee, who were prominent in the later struggle with the Romans as being, in a special sense, “zealots for the law” (Josephus, Wars, 4.3.9; compare a similar use of the word in Acts 21:20). On this assumption, we get an interesting glimpse into this apostle's earlier life. The other term, Cananite, expresses the same idea, as it is not a local term but is connected with a Hebrew verb, kana, meaning to be hot, to glow, or to be zealous.

   Lastly, we have “Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him,” described by John as the “son of Simon” (John 6:71; John 12:4; John 13:2; John 13:26), with the term “Iscariot” being applied to the father in the first and last of these passages. These facts leave little doubt that the name is local, being the Hellenized form of Ish-Kerioth (a man of Kerioth), a town in Judah mentioned in Joshua 15:25. Assuming this, Judas is the only one among the Twelve who was probably from Judah and not Galilee. This distinction may have influenced his character, perhaps separating him from the devoted loyalty of the others.

Go not into the way of the Gentiles — This emphatic limitation seems, at first, to conflict with the language that spoke of those who would come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God. It also seems at odds with the fact that our Lord had already taken His disciples into a Samaritan city and told them that there, too, the fields were white for the harvest (John 4:35).

We must remember, however, several points:

1. The limitation was confined to the mission on which they were now sent.
2. It merely recognized a divine order—the priority of Israel in God’s dealings with humanity: to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
3. The disciples themselves were not yet equipped to begin a work that required broader thoughts and hopes than they had yet attained.

It was necessary for them to learn to share their Master’s pity for the lost sheep of the house of Israel before they could enter into His yearning for the sheep that were not of this fold (John 10:16).

Preach—that is, “proclaim—act as heralds,” as elsewhere. The repetition of the very same words that had described the teaching of first John the Baptist and then our Lord seems to suggest that this was an actual formula for proclamation. The King’s two envoys were to enter a town or village, stand in the gate to announce that His kingdom had come near, and then, once this had drawn a crowd to listen, call people to the repentance without which they could not enter it.

Raise the dead — These words are omitted by the best manuscripts, and their absence is more in accordance with the facts of the Gospel history, which records no instance of that highest form of miracle being performed by the disciples during our Lord’s ministry. That was reserved for His own immediate act. The insertion of the words was probably due to a wish to make the command cover such instances of power as that shown in the case of Dorcas (Acts 9:40) and Eutychus (Acts 20:9–12).

Freely ye have received — The English text hardly suggests more than giving liberally. The Greek is much stronger: “Give as a free gift—give gratis.” They had paid Him nothing. They were not, in this first mission, to require payment from others. When the kingdom had been established, the necessities of the case might require the application of the principle that the laborer is worthy of his hire in an organized system of stipends and similar support (1 Timothy 5:18); but the principle of “giving freely” in this sense is always applicable in proportion as the work of Christ’s ministers has the character of a mission. They must proclaim the kingdom until a sense of the blessing it has brought shows itself in the thank-offerings of gratitude. A similar principle of gratuitous teaching had been asserted before by some of the nobler Jewish Rabbis.