“Do not procure for yourselves gold, or silver, or copper in your money belts; no food wallet for your journey; neither two tunics, nor shoes, nor staff. For the labourer is worthy of his provision.”
The first point that Jesus makes is that they are not to provision themselves out beyond the bare necessities that they are used to, nor build up provisions for themselves, either on their starting out or while on their journey. They must rather continually go forward trusting their heavenly Father for all provision (Matthew 6:19-34), humbly accepting what He gives them without taking wrongful advantage of it. They were not to look for luxuries. and only accept the minimum necessary. One purpose of this was in order to keep them spiritually dependent and humble. It would be very necessary. The new power that they had received could easily have gone to their heads and might even have encouraged greed, as grateful people loaded gifts on them.
‘Do not procure for yourselves gold, or silver, or copper in your money belts.' Thus they were not to take with them a store of money on their journey, whether of large or small amounts, or accept it from well-wishers, nor were they to accumulate it on their travels. By this it would be seen that they were genuine and prophetic men, and they would also be saved from greed and covetousness.
‘No food wallet for your journey.' They were not to take a food wallet for self-sustenance, either at the beginning of their journey, or as they moved on from one city to another. For they were to depend on their heavenly Father for His provision and were to become one with the people among whom they ministered. They were not to be ‘independent'. By this there would be a bond between themselves and those who welcomed them, and they would be able to discern between the places where they were welcome and the places where they were not.
‘Neither two tunics.' Nor were they to provide themselves with two tunics, or accept gifts with that in mind. Having two tunics might well have been seen as a sign of those who were better off, but even if not it would indicate a lack of total trust. It may suggest that by providing a ‘spare', which most might have seen as normal, they would be reflecting their independence. But that was what they should not be. They were not to be independent. If a need did arise in this regard they were to be totally dependent on the provision of their Father (Matthew 6:30). Or the idea may be that men wore two tunics when they thought that they would be sleeping in the open. By not doing so they would be demonstrating their trust that God would always provide them with overnight accommodation.
‘Nor shoes.' They were not to take extra shoes, over and above the sandals that they wore (compare Luke 10:4; that they were to wear at least sandals is suggested by the fact that they were to ‘shake the dust off their feet' which assumes footwear). Or it may be that the ‘two' applied to the shoes as well.
‘Nor staff.' They were not to procure a staff for themselves. The point here is that they were not to arm themselves, but were to depend for their safety on their heavenly Father. On the other hand those who normally carried a staff for getting along were not required to dispense with it (that is probably the significance of Mark 6:8. It is quite likely that as Jesus spoke questions were asked and discussion followed).
‘For the labourer is worthy of his provision.' And the reason for all this was that they could expect such things as they needed to be provided by those who welcomed them, as they needed them, because of their faithfulness in their labours and the care of their heavenly Father. They could accept such provision, for it was in line with what they were providing, while excess would not have been acceptable because it would be more than a prophetic man should expect.
There was good sense in all this. It would demonstrate whether they were really welcome (hospitality was considered important by the Jews, especially for teachers, and there were few inns. Thus if they were themselves wanted by the people such things would be provided for them). They would not shame the poor by having more than they had (they were taking Good News to the poor - Isaiah 61:1). They would demonstrate their willingness to live at the same level as those who received them. They would not be tempted from their goal by extraneous things. And they would not be a target for bandits, who seeing their defencelessness and poverty would leave them alone. Bandits would recognise that no man who was carrying money would be without a means of protecting it, thus lack of a stout staff would suggest no money. Furthermore in all this they would be constantly relying on God for both food and protection, something that could only contribute to their spiritual welfare. Included also may have been the idea of not delaying their activities for selfish reasons, and of not being weighed down by ‘other things' (compare Mark 4:19).
So the point was that they were to go as they were, without making extra provision for themselves, because of their trust in their heavenly Father. This is probably the explanation for the staff/no staff. Some always carried a staff because, like a walking stick, it gave them support. They could therefore take it with them. But those who usually managed without a staff should not make special provision of one for themselves for the purpose of protection or extra strength. They should carry on trusting in God for both.