Mk 6:8 He instructed them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—6:9 and to put on sandals but not to wear two tunics.

Mt 10:9f ‘”Do not take gold, silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for the journey, or an extra tunic, or sandals or staff, for the worker deserves his provisions.”‘

Lk 9:3 ‘He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, and do not take an extra tunic.”‘

This is both one of the most puzzling, and one of the most trivial, of ‘tough texts’.

The overall message is crystal clear in all three Gospels – they were to travel light.

But what about a staff – were they permitted to take one (Mark) or forbidden to do so (Matthew, Luke)?

As France remarks:

‘This disagreement is so direct and simple that it has become a favourite test case in discussions about the detailed harmonisation of the gospels.’

Unresolvable discrepancy?

According to some, it’s ‘goodbye, inerrancy…’

In A New Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. Gore)

‘[Luke] changes Mark’s ‘a staff only’ into ‘no staff.’ This…may be a mere mistake—a failure in correct recollection of Mark’s words.’

Even so conservative a commentator as Hendriksen admits that there is no easy way to resolve this apparent discrepancy.

Stein:

‘No satisfactory solution of this apparent conflict has been forthcoming as of yet.’

Keener (IVPNTC) does not attempt to reconcile the accounts:

‘Mark allows at least staff (for self-protection) and sandals, but Matthew’s demand for simplicity is still more radical, prohibiting even these.’

Differences due to idealization?

Hagner (on Matthew) comments:

‘The differences between the four lists of what to take on the missionary journey are not significant since essentially the same point is being made by all: one is not to be encumbered by the usual equipment taken on journeys. There is clearly a tendency in the lists for the later ones to become more stringent in their stipulations. Thus, whereas Mark (6:8–11) allows a staff and sandals, Matthew (v 10) and Luke (9:3 prohibiting a staff; 10:4 prohibiting sandals) disallow both. Luke has the further command not to greet those on the road (10:4). Since it is practically unthinkable that Jesus would have prohibited sandals or a staff (moreover, as France points out, v 14 presupposes sandals), both extremely practical for travel at that time, the restrictions against these in Matthew and Luke must either be understood as directed against extra sandals (cf. Luke 10:4, βαστάζετε, “carry,” i.e., in addition to wearing) and staff or, more likely, as an idealization of the urgency of the mission and the total dependence upon the Lord (cf. Luke 22:35). Also, Luke 22:36 suggests that the restrictions were temporary rather than binding in the new (and increasingly hostile) era of the post-resurrection Church.’

Nolland (on Luke) remarks:

‘Such variations demonstrate the way in which such an account straddles between reporting a unique event and providing a pattern for ongoing missionary endeavor. Luke is attempting to be more historically accurate here than Mark, because he knows he will have the opportunity to qualify the continuing relevance of the injunctions later in the Gospel (see at 22:35–38).’

Textual reconstruction?

Various approaches have been made.

Blomberg argues:

‘If Matthew’s account is composite, this verse may have originally applied to the sending of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1–12), which likely included the Twelve, at which time Jesus’ instructions differed slightly from those he gave just to the Twelve. That 9:37–38 and 10:10b find their only parallels in Luke 10:2 and 7b may support this reconstruction.’

Brooks (NAC) thinks that Matthew and Luke probably reflect what Jesus actually said:

‘Apparently Mark made some minor adaptations to make the conditions understandable to his Roman readers/hearers or perhaps to recall the Exodus (cf. Exod 12:11).’

Taylor and Cranfield say much the same thing.

Osborne thinks it likely that

‘Matthew and Luke follow Q, a different set of instructions given on another occasion.’

Strauss, in a footnote, reviews various possible interpretations, but concludes that ‘we simply do not know’.

France also thinks that the issue remains unresolved.

Same difference?

Ahern cites Maldonatus (without approval), according to whom:

‘Each evangelist in contrary, words aptly expressed the same meaning. For each, setting forth, not Christ’s words, but His meaning, wished to signify that Christ had charged the Apostles not to have anything beyond what was necessary for present use.’

Our Lord was reccommending poverty: the evangelists faithfully represented this by having him say: “Take a staff” (Matthew, Luke); “Take only a staff” (Mark).

Different readerships?

Some think that in Mark’s version the wording has been adjusted to suit a different readership.  Marshal (NBC):

‘Mark’s version allows the disciples to carry a staff: it is meant for later followers of Jesus facing more difficult conditions than those in Galilee.’

Two different implements?

Calvin and others have suggested that Mark is referring to a walking stick, whereas Matthew and Luke have in mind a shepherd’s staff.

Matthew Henry surmises:

‘In Matthew and Luke they are forbidden to take staves with them, that is, fighting staves; but here in Mark they are bid to take nothing save a staff only, that is, a walking staff, such as pilgrims carried.’

But this seems unlikely, since the Synoptics all use the same word.

‘Take’ vs. ‘obtain’?

Hendriksen thinks that Matthew may be referring to not taking extra items for the journey.

France (NBC and TNTC on Matthew) observes that the word translated ‘take’ normally means, in Matthew, ‘obtain’.Matthew’s version forbids them from acquiring a staff for the journey, while Mark’s allows them to take the one they already have.  This solution is favoured by Grudem (Systematic Theology, 2nd ed.).  This theory is also proposed by authors mentioned by Ahern.  Morris inclines to this view.

Carson thinks that Mark’s account might clarify the other two accounts:

‘Mark permits “taking” (airō, GK 149) sandals and a staff (a walking stick) and forbids everything else (Mk 6:8–9); Matthew’s account forbids “procuring” (ktaomai, GK 3227) even sandals or a walking stick (10:10). It may be that Mark’s account clarifies what the disciples are permitted to bring, whereas Matthew’s assumes that the disciples already have certain things (one cloak, sandals, a walking stick) and forbids them from “procuring” anything more.’

Strauss:

‘Some have claimed that Matthew and Luke are referring to taking or acquiring an extra staff. This may perhaps be implied by Matthew’s imperative not to “get” or acquire (κτήσησθε) these things (Matt 10:9–10). Luke, however, speaks of “taking” or “carrying” (αἴρετε) a staff (Luke 9:3), so this solution seems stretched. In any case, why would anyone travel with more than one staff?’

Mounce:

‘The simplest way to understand Matthew’s divergence from Mark is to take the “two” (or extra as the NIV has it) with sandals and staff as well as tunic. It would hardly be reasonable to understand Matthew as saying that the Twelve are to travel barefoot and without a staff for protection against snakes and wild animals. They are to travel unencumbered and allow their hearers to take care of their daily needs.’

Mounce has an extended discussion here.

This explanation, though plausible, cannot be more than that.  Brooks asks why, if Matthew and Luke meant for them not to take extra staffs (and sandals), why didn’t they say so?

On sticking to the main point

Albert Barnes:

‘To many this would appear to be a contradiction. Yet the spirit of the instruction, the main thing that the writers aim at, is the same. That was, that they were to go just as they were, to trust to Providence, and not to spend any time in making preparation for their journey. Some of them, probably, when he addressed them, had staves, and some had not. To those who had, He did not say that they should throw them away, as the instructions he was giving them might seem to require, but he suffered them to take them (Mark). To those who had not, he said they should not spend time in procuring them (Matthew), but they were all to go just as they were.’

Conclusion

I don’t think that it is possible to be dogmatic about this apparent discrepancy.

Bibliography

For an older review of approaches to harmonisation, see ‘Staff or no Staff?’ by Barnabas Ahern, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July, 1943), pp. 332-337.