(Mk 6:7-13)

Mark 6:7 Then he called the Twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them power over unclean spirits.

Mark 6:8 And he commanded them that, besides the staff, they should take nothing for the journey: neither bread, nor saddlebag, nor money in the bag;

Mark 6:9 But, putting on only sandals, that they should not put on two tunics.

Mark 6:10 And he said to them, "When you have entered a house, stay there until you leave that place.

Mark 6:11 And if in any place they will not receive you, and will not listen to you, go and shake the dust from under your feet, as a testimony for them."

Mark 6:12 And they departed, and preached that the people should be converted,

Mark 6:13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

Significant is that 'began to send them'. We would have expected that after the calling of the Twelve, Mark would say "and sent them" and not "began to send them". But that 'began to send them' suggests that this sending was not the only one, but there were still others. It cannot be ruled out that here Mark was thinking of the post-Easter time and, in particular, of the believing communities that sent missionary preachers from within to announce the Word of God. Invitations, therefore, that began with Jesus and now continue with them. It should not be forgotten, in fact, that the Gospels are always affected by the ongoing situation of the believing communities.

The specification of sending "two by two", if historically it indicates the mutual support in the difficult mission of proclamation, from a theological point of view the sending in pairs refers back to Deut 19:15 where it is stated that "A single witness shall not be of value against any man for any fault or for any sin; whatever sin he may have committed, the fact shall be established on the word of two or three witnesses". The context of Deut 19:15 is juridical and has to do with ongoing judgement, so that the reference to this passage somehow hints at how this preaching also takes on eschatological significance. We find ourselves, therefore, in front of God's final call to conversion, an element that will be recalled in verse 12, suggesting that this is the time in which the listener is called upon to take a position in the face of this proclamation and it will be he himself, according to the choice of acceptance or rejection, who will determine the destiny of his own salvation or otherwise.

The sending of the Twelve on mission is associated with the power that Jesus assigns to them over unclean spirits.  This is an important aspect of the mission, the meaning and purpose of which is to free man from the power of Satan and lead him back to God, from whom he had dramatically departed in the beginnings of humanity. In other words, God came to take back what belongs to him and came in and with Jesus to reassert his power in the midst of mankind, that is, to reconstitute among them the Kingdom of God.

The first rule of the mission is 'take nothing for the journey', and the word Paul uses is 'hodon', whose literal meaning is 'way, road, path'. Here the place of work and proclamation is defined: the road, qualifying the preacher as an itinerant, a traveller who is constantly on the move, since with him the Word of God moves and walks the roads of the empire. In this way and in no other it spreads. The missionary's "journey" must be devoid of all material comforts, for his security must rest in God and not in himself. No saddlebags, no bread, no money, for if the worker is entitled to his wages, they must come from his Master, who certainly will not let him lack them.

The second rule permits the wearing of sandals to protect the foot of the itinerant preacher, since the sandal becomes in a certain sense a necessary tool of work. It is forbidden to 'wear' two tunics, which were probably worn at the same time. Evidence to this effect comes to us from Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities XVII,136. What was the meaning of wearing two tunics at the same time is not known to us. However, following Josephus' attestation, it seems that the double tunic served to conceal some document or some object that had to be confidential or secret; considering, then, that the garment in biblical language is a metaphor for the essence or qualities of the person wearing it, then the double tunic worn could allude to the duplicity of the person and, therefore, to his insincerity or his tendency to lie. Thus the prohibition of wearing the two tunics seems to mean not having duplicity in speech or behaviour.

The third rule attested in v. 10 concerns lodging: "When you have entered a house, stay there until you leave that place". The intention is to prevent both the itinerant apostle from abusing the hospitality of the congregation, going a little here and a little there; and also from getting lost in chatter and gossip. The travelling apostle must keep his focus on his primary task, which is the proclamation and establishment of new congregations.

However, the rigidity of these norms, rather than a lifestyle imposed on itinerant apostles and preachers, seem to constitute a yardstick for evaluating and distinguishing between the true apostle and those who have made of their apostleship a trade from which to derive personal benefit. The believer, therefore, in receiving an apostle or preacher must look at his lifestyle and interests.

The last rule (v. 11) concerns how to behave in case of rejection of the apostle and with him of his proclamation: "If in any place they will not receive you and will not listen to you, go and shake the dust from under your feet as a testimony for them. Shaking the dust from one's feet recalls a characteristic behaviour of the Jew, who, coming from a pagan land, considered impure, before entering his own land, considered holy, shook the dust from his shoes and feet in order to avoid any pollution. The apostle or itinerant preacher must do likewise. Here, however, the meaning changes, for it is not a matter of shaking off impurities, but a sign of rejection. In other words: whoever rejects God is rejected by God. Shaking the dust off one's feet is done as a sign against them. The apostle, therefore, will become a witness in the divine judgement against this rejection.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)