Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey? Yes (Mark 6:8) No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

Contextual Overview

The question arises from the apparent discrepancy between Mark 6:8 and the parallel passages in Matthew 10:9–10 and Luke 9:3. In Mark, Jesus seems to permit carrying a staff, while Matthew and Luke suggest leaving it behind. At first glance, this may look like a contradiction, but examining each passage in its historical context and linguistic usage clarifies the scenario.

Comparative Gospel Passages

• Mark 6:8: “And He instructed them to take nothing but a staff for the journey—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—”

• Matthew 10:9–10: “Do not carry any gold or silver or copper in your belts. Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff; for the worker is worthy of his provisions.”

• Luke 9:3: “Take nothing for the journey, He told them, no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no second tunic.”

Mark’s account mentions bringing a staff, while Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts include “no staff” among the items not to be taken. Because the Gospels consistently portray Jesus instructing His disciples to trust in divine provision, these passages all communicate a common principle: the disciples should rely fully on God and not be preoccupied with material supplies.

Linguistic Considerations

Several interpretations focus on the original Greek wording and its nuances:

1. Some interpret Matthew and Luke to mean “Do not procure or set aside additional items,” while Mark indicates permission to carry what a person already owns—namely, a single staff commonly used for walking in difficult terrain.

2. The command “take no staff” could emphasize the avoidance of extra or backup supplies. The wording may allow for using a staff already in one’s possession but forbidding the purchase of additional travel gear.

Commentators from the early centuries, such as John Chrysostom (4th century AD), suggest that the heart of the command is not about the specific item (staff, bag) but about trusting God’s provision and avoiding any reliance on excess or special preparation (Homilies on Matthew, cited in various patristic commentaries).

Possible Explanations

1. Different Audiences, Emphases, or Moments: Matthew and Luke may highlight Jesus’ overarching principle of trust, underlining the idea of “nothing extra,” while Mark includes the staff among the limited necessities allowed. In the first-century context, a staff often served as both a walking aid and a basic means of protection.

2. A Single Essential Item Versus Multiple Items: An especially common explanation is that Jesus was forbidding the disciples from taking multiple staffs or upgrading their supplies. Mark’s focus, therefore, is on the minimal travel items one might use day to day.

3. Redaction and Literary Purposes: Each Gospel writer chose elements from the same event to convey related but slightly different emphases. Mark, writing with a brisk narrative style, stresses the singular permission of a staff, while Matthew and Luke stress not stockpiling. This approach does not assume contradiction but recognizes each author’s theological angle and audience needs.

Theological Implications

1. Reliance on Divine Provision: All three Gospels ultimately teach that God would provide what the disciples needed as they preached the kingdom. Over-reliance on physical items could disrupt their trust in God’s care.

2. Unity in Diversity: That there are some distinct details in the Gospels yet they share the same core message underlines a principle often observed in multiple eyewitness accounts. Minor variations in detail do not undermine the consistent teachings of Jesus.

3. Confidence in the Scriptural Message: The earliest manuscript witnesses, examined by scholars such as Dr. James White and Dr. Dan Wallace, show no evidence that these passages were later alterations designed to patch up difficulties. The text itself is stable and historically authentic, pointing to a real scenario of Jesus sending out His disciples with minimal resources.

Conclusion

A close reading affirms that these passages do not present an insurmountable contradiction. Instead, they underscore a common lesson: the disciples were to trust the Lord’s provision and travel lightly for the sake of the Gospel. Mark simply includes the staff as permissible for practical reasons, while Matthew and Luke stress the prohibition of acquiring or depending on extra supplies. The differences highlight the varied emphases of the Gospel writers, all of whom preserve Jesus’ core teaching of reliance on divine provision.