Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 9:38
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.
38 41. The Question of John
38. And John answered him ] The words in My name of Mar 9:37 seem to have reminded the Apostle of an incident in their recent journey.
because he followeth not us ] Observe what the Apostle affirms to have been the ground of their rebuke, “because he followeth not us,” not “because he followeth not Thee.” It is the utterance of excited party feeling. “We gather from this passage,” observes Meyer, “how mightily the words and influence of Christ had wrought outside the sphere of His permanent dependants, exciting in individuals a degree of spiritual energy that performed miracles on others.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
We saw one … – There is no improbability in supposing that this might have been one of the disciples of John, or one of the seventy whom Jesus had sent out, and who, though he did not personally attend on Jesus, yet had the power of working miracles. There is no evidence that he was merely an exorcist, or that he used the name of Jesus merely as a pretence.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mar 9:38-40
And we forbade him
Christian toleration
I.
That power to do good is not monopolized by one class of believers in Christ. We can only conjecture, but there is strong reason for supposing, as many have done, that this man who was encountered in his work by our Lords disciples, was a disciple of John Baptist. It is not unlikely that he may have been but partially enlightened as to the mission of our Lord; or have fully believed in Him as the Messiah, but have preferred an independent course of action for himself. We have seen, and we see today, similar deeds of helpful charity being performed by men not of our party, who do not worship at the church or chapel which we are accustomed to attend. The essentials of a good deed are alike in both cases. These neighbours of ours are engaged in casting out the demons of ignorance, vicious habits, vile passions, and despairing poverty. Some of them have confronted difficulties which we have not dared to face, and solved problems which we had pronounced impossible of solution. All Christian parties and all Christian men can bear testimony to the universal existence of this fact.
II. We remark that the conduct of the disciples is not singular for its intolerance. The clannish feeling was very strong amongst these men. There is something really good at the bottom of this feeling. It implies and involves a binding principle of fealty, which is one of the truest feelings of noble natures. But unless it is checked in some of its tendencies, and regulated by judicious reflections, it becomes exclusive and illiberal. We can hardly imagine the meek, gentle, and tender-spirited John joining in the exclusive conduct of this severe proceeding. It is difficult to conceive of the censure which he could pass upon a man who was doing good. But the meekest men become severe where privileges of a certain order are concerned.
III. We observe the tolerant spirit of Christ. Forbid him not! Let him alone; leave him to his work! Forbid him not! for two reasons: first, because there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly (or easily, quickly, readily) speak evil of Me. Secondly, He that is not against us is on our part. He that cannot speak against me may be regarded as my friend. In a matter like this the absence of opposition may be accepted as a proof of support. Tacit approval of our work must be welcomed as next in importance, if no more, to definite cooperation. Do we not wait for men to join our ranks before we acknowledge them as followers of Christ? We have devoted too much of the energy and earnestness of our life to the little matters that absorb us as denominations rather than to the grander and mightier subjects that concern us as Christians. Between us and those from whom we stand aloof there may exist no real barrier to a happy and hearty recognition of our common interest in the same dear and blessed Lord. Everything which tends to rend away the veil that separates the follower of Jesus Christ from his brother is to be hailed with devout and fervent gratitude, and every spirit should yearn to join the prayer of that great heart while yet upon the earth, That they all may be one. (W. Dorling.)
The line of conduct we should adopt towards those who follow not with us
I would remark-
I. That it becomes us carefully to observe their sentiments, professions, characters, and conduct. They follow not with us; therefore, says one, they must be wrong. Let them alone, says another. We have sufficient to do to mind our own concerns, replies a third. Am I my brothers keeper? observes a fourth. Truth and charity require that we should ascertain the sentiments and practices of those who follow not with us, before we forbid them; and that we should ascertain those sentiments from authorized and acknowledged statements and records, as far as we can obtain access to them.
II. Such inquires naturally lead to a second remark; namely, that where we have not opportunity of thus precisely ascertaining the sentiments and conduct of those who follow not with us; and where it is necessary, notwithstanding, to give some advice with respect to them, that advice should be given in as favourable a manner as the circumstances with which we are acquainted will allow. They follow not with us; but are they casting out Satan in the name of Christ?-They follow not with us. Now, we are convinced of being right, and this affords a legitimate presumption that those who differ from us are in some respects wrong; but, at the same time, it is not a necessary conclusion. The presumption, therefore, of criminality being disposed of, the next inquiry is, Do they cast out Satan in the name of Christ? or, in plainer terms, Are they, on Christian principles, endeavouring to diminish the sum of crime and misery-to promote the cause of peace and purity, to lead men from sin to holiness? and if so, the answer must be-Forbid them not. Observe-It must be in the name of Christ. Men come continually with this and that ingenious device and philosophical contrivance; the cant of liberalism, the virtues of universal suffrage, the abolition of the poor laws-this panacea for all that is wrong, and the patent for the production of all that is right. I say not, there is nothing in these things; I say not that politicians and legislators may not do well to consider such topics; but, as a Christian man and a Christian minister, I say-All these are mere trifles. The philosopher may say-With this machine, and this standing place, I will move the world. True, says his opponent; in the longest space of human life you will move the world some thousandth part of an inch-and what then? Such is the whole value of the labours of many. It must be in the name of Christ, the dignity of His character, the power, the mercy, the atonement, the intercession, the grace of Christ. All other means, brethren, of casting out devils, of overcoming sin, of producing holiness, are utterly in vain; the evil spirit will return. He will say-Jesus I know, and Paul I know-but who are ye? Even moral precepts, moral suasion, the terrors of the law, the solemnities of death, the eternal consequences of judgment, are found ineffectual to break the bondage of iniquity. (T. Webster, M. A.)
The degrees of Christianity
I. The degree of service. He that is not against us is on our part. That man of whom St. John tells us in our text that he had east out devils in Jesuss name was mightily stimulated by the appearance of Jesus and His wonderful works. He was no disciple, for how could he else have taken his own way, if in his heart he truly belonged to Jesus. His heart was far from Jesus, but his understanding perceived the importance of Jesus, and he believed in the power of His name which he had often experienced. Thus he was a servant, though not a child, of God; in Jesuss service, but not in His commission. The name of Jesus exercises an overwhelming authority even upon those who in heart are far from Him, even on the things of natural human life, law, science, art, etc. These are not Christianized in the proper sense of that word, and yet we call them Christian; they are in the service of the cause of Jesus. Christians ought not to disparage outward Christianity, or call it hypocrisy; it acknowledges the name of Christ and is serving His cause. When the point in question is our adoption and salvation, then we must be for Him. But he already serves Him who is not exactly against Him and His cause. That is the first degree, the degree of serving His cause. But saving His believing people has a higher value. Whosoever shall give you a cup of cold water, etc. However, nobody has an eye for this hidden beauty, but he who in the spirit perceives the beauty of Jesus, and nobody has a hearty love for the poor saints of Jesus but he who in love has shut up the Lord Jesus in his heart. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. The Lord does not speak of friendly services such as man renders to man from natural sympathy, but of the service rendered to His disciples, and rendered to them because they are His disciples. Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in My name, because ye belong to Christ. Such a serving of the saints is not without communion with Jesus in faith and love.
II. That is the other degree. The degree of communion, of communion of heart. For communion of the heart with Jesus is that, and that only, which constitutes the disciple of Jesus the Christian. My beloved brethren, there are many things which we find and win in Jesus-wisdom, holiness, glory-but what we have to seek in Him, in the first place, is the pardon of our sins; what we have to see in Him is the Lamb of God which takes away our sins. Then all other things will be added to us; that is the communion with Jesus, the following of Jesus, as St. John narrates it of himself, for our example and stimulation. That is his meaning when he tells Jesus of one who followeth not us. But that is not all. That man of whom St. John speaks exercised an activity which had a certain resemblance to the working of the apostles. Thus St. John did not only recognize an imitation of Jesus Christ in faith and love, but also in good works, not only a communion of the heart, but also of the life. He thought of this not less when he spoke that word. And though we be no apostles, and though we are not all ministers of the gospel, we yet have all a share in the one great work of helping to build up and hasten the full glory of the kingdom of Christ. But our entering into that communion of working with Jesus is only effected by prayer, by His prayer and ours. In the communion of the love of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit begins every prayer, and we carry it out in the words of our lips. That prayer sends down upon us the fulness of the Spirit while our prayer plunges us into the depth of the Divine spiritual life, that we may emerge from it filled with the powers of a higher world. Therein the communion with Jesus Christ is finished. (C. L. E. Luthardt.)
The fellowship of the apostles
It is argued that as the apostles were not allowed to forbid this stranger, neither may the Church forbid strange preachers; that all have a right to preach, whether they follow the Church or no, so that they do but preach in the name of Jesus. Such is the objection, and I propose now to consider it.
1. First, then, this man was not preaching; he was casting out devils. This is a great difference-he was doing a miracle. There is no man which shall do a miracle in My name, etc. Man cannot overcome the devil, Christ only overcomes him. If a man casts out a devil, he has power from Christ; and if he has power from Christ, he must have a commission from Christ; and who shall forbid one, to whom God gives commission to do miracles, from doing them? That would be fighting against God. But, on the other hand, many a man may preach without being sent from God and having power from Him; for Christ expressly warns us against false prophets.
2. But it may be said, The effects of preaching are a miracle. A good preacher converts persons; he casts out devils from the hearts of those whom he changes from sin to holiness. This he could not do without power from God. But what seems good, is often not good.
3. But, again, even if sinners are converted upon such a ones preaching, this would net show that he did the work, or, at least, that he had more than a share in it. The miracle might after all belong to the Church, not to him. They are but the occasion of the miracle, not the instrument of it. Persons who take up with strange preachers often grant that they gained their first impressions in the Church. To proceed.
(1) It should be observed, then, that if our Saviour says on this occasion, He that is not against us is on our part; yet elsewhere He says, He that is not with Me is against Me. The truth is, while a system is making way against an existing state of things, help of any kind advances it; but when it is established, the same kind of professed help tells against it. It was at a time when there was no church; we have no warrant for saying that because men might work in Christs name, without following the apostles, before He had built up His Church, and had made them the foundations of it, therefore such persons may do so lawfully since. He did not set up His Church till after the resurrection. Accordingly, when the Christians at Corinth went into parties, and set up forms of doctrine of their own, St. Paul forbade them. What! he said, came the Word of God out from you? (1Co 14:36). That Church made you what you are, as far as you are Christian, and has a right to bid you follow her. And for what we know, the very man in the text was one of St. Johns disciples; who might lawfully remain as he was without joining the apostles till the apostles received the gift of the Holy Ghost, then he was bound to join them.
(2) And here, too, we have light thrown upon an expression in the text, In My name. Merely to use the name of Jesus is not enough; we must look for that name where He has lodged it. He has not lodged it in the world at large, but in a secure dwelling place, and we have that name engraven on us only when we are in that dwelling place (Exo 23:20-21). Thus the stranger in the text might use the name of Jesus without following the apostles, because they bad not yet had the name of Christ named upon them. Nothing can be inferred from the text in favour of those who set up against the Church, or who interfere with it. On the whole, then, I would say this; when strangers to the Church preach great Christian truths, and do not oppose the Church, then, though we may not follow them, though we may not join them, yet we are not allowed to forbid them; but in proportion as they preach what is in itself untrue, and do actively oppose Gods great Ordinance, so far they are not like the man whom our Lord told His apostles not to forbid. But in all cases, whether they preach true doctrine or not, or whether they oppose us or not, so much we learn, viz., that we must overcome them, not so much by refuting them, as by preaching the truth. Let us be far more set upon alluring souls into the right way than on forbidding them the wrong. Let us be like racers in a course, who do not impede, but try to outstrip each other by love. (J. H. Newman, B. D.)
Party spirit
I. Attend to a few general observations on the passage.
1. On the introduction of a new dispensation the power of working miracles was necessary, in order to establish its Divine authority; and this power consequently attended the first ages of Christianity.
2. Some who profess a sacred regard for the name of Jesus, and the doctrines of the gospel, may nevertheless not follow Him in all things as we do, or as they themselves ought to do. This may arise from ignorance, indolence, and inadvertence.
3. In the conduct of the disciples we may see our own aptness to imagine that those do not follow Christ at all who do not follow Him with us.
II. Inquire into the causes of that uncharitable judgment, which professed Christians are disposed to pass upon one another.
1. An immoderate degree of self-love.
2. Bigotry and party spirit are another source of uncharitable judgment.
3. An idle and pragmatic temper is another of these causes.
4. A liberty taken to censure and condemn others, is often vindicated by the appearance of a similar disposition on the other side. Let us not judge of mens thoughts and intentions when there is nothing reprehensible in their conduct. (B. Beddome, M. A.)
The spirit of intolerance and sectarianism
Note the us. Although no exegetical emphasis is lying on it, yet it is well to read it with some doctrinal intonation. It is the point at which the principle of exclusiveness crops up-that spirit of intolerance which so easily develops itself into fagot and fire. It was rife in the Jewish nation. It had been rife among other peoples. And although it was nipped in the bud by the Saviour the moment it sprang up among His disciples, yet by and by it rose again within the circle of Christendom, and grew into a upas tree that spread its branches, and distilled its blight, almost as far as the name of Christ was named. The tree still stands, alas-though many a noble hatchet has been raised to cut it down. It stands; but the hatchets have not been plied in vain. It is moribund. And here and there some of its larger boughs have been lopped off, so that the sweet air of heaven is getting in upon hundreds of thousands of the more favoured of those who were sitting in the shadow of death. (J. Morison, D. D.)
Working with Christ outside the apostolate
The complaint brought by the disciples against the man was, he followeth not us,-us, the apostles; the complaint says nothing about following Christ. There was a spirit of envy and selfishness in this remark, which would have restrained Christs favours to the persons of the apostles and their immediate adherents. But our Lord reminds the complainants that the man wrought miracles in their Masters name, as they themselves had owned; i.e., he wrought miracles in conformity to Christs will, and for the promotion of Christs glory-i.e., in union with Christ-and not for any private end; therefore the man was with Christ, though he did not personally follow in the company of the apostles, just as John Baptist was with Christ, though not in person; and as all the apostles preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments of Christ in Christs name in all parts of the world were with one another and with Christ, after He had ascended into heaven. The man was not neuter in the cause, and therefore was not against them; and their Master had authorized him openly by enabling him to work in His name; and therefore the man was with Him, and consequently with His apostles, in heart and spirit, though not in person and presence, and was not to be forbidden or discouraged by them. Thus our Lord delivered a warning against that sectarian spirit which is eager for its own ends rather than for Christs; and would limit Christs graces to personal communion with itself, instead of inquiring whether those whom it would exclude from grace are not working in Christs name-that is, in obedience to His laws, and for the promotion of His glory; and in the unity of His Church, and in the full and free administration of His Word and Sacraments, and so in communion with Him. Besides-even if the man was separated from their communion, and worked miracles in separation (which does not appear to have been the case, for he worked in the name of Christ), what they ought to have forbidden was the being in separation, and not the working miracles. If a man, separated from Christ and His Church, preaches Christ, then Christ approves His own Word, preached by one in separation; but He does not approve the separation itself, any more than God approved the sins of Balaam, Saul, and Caiaphas, and Judas, when He prophesied and preached by their mouths. (Bishop Christopher Wordsworth.)
Intolerance rebuked
There lived in Berlin a shoemaker who had a habit of speaking harshly and uncharitably of all his neighbours who did not think quite as he did about religion. The old pastor of the parish in which the shoemaker lived heard of this, and felt that he must try to teach him a lesson of toleration. He did it in this way. Sending for the shoemaker one morning, he said to him, John, take my measure for a pair of boots. With pleasure, your reverence, replied the shoemaker, please take off your boot. The clergyman did so, and the shoemaker measured his foot from toe to heel, and over the instep, noted all down in his pocket book; and then prepared to leave the room. But, as he was putting up the measure, the pastor said to him, John, my son also requires a pair of boots. I will make them with pleasure, your reverence. Can I take the young gentlemans measure this morning? Oh, that is unnecessary, said the pastor; the lad is fourteen, but you can make my boots and his from the same last. Your reverence, that will never do, said the shoemaker, with a smile of surprise. I tell you, John, to make my boots and those for my son, on the same last. No, your reverence, I cannot do it. It must be done-on the same last, remember. But, your reverence, it is not possible, if the boots are to fit, said the shoemaker, thinking to himself that the old pastors wits must be leaving him. Ah, then, master shoemaker, said the clergyman, every pair of boots must be made on their own last, if they are to fit, and yet you think that God is to form all Christians exactly according to your own last, of the same measure and growth in religion as yourself. That will not do, either. The shoemaker was abashed. Then he said, I thank your reverence for this sermon, and I will try to remember it, and to judge my neighbours less harshly in the future.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 38. We saw one casting out devils in thy name] It can scarcely be supposed that a man who knew nothing of Christ, or who was only a common exorcist, could be able to work a miracle in Christ’s name; we may therefore safely imagine that this was either one of John the Baptist’s disciples, who, at his master’s command, had believed in Jesus, or one of the seventy, whom Christ had sent out, Lu 10:1-7, who, after he had fulfilled his commission, had retired from accompanying the other disciples; but as he still held fast his faith in Christ, and walked in good conscience, the influence of his Master still continued with him, so that he could cast out demons as well as the other disciples.
He followeth not us] This first clause is omitted by BCL, three others, Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, and one of the Itala. Some of the MSS. and versions leave out the first; some the second clause: only one of them is necessary. Griesbach leaves out the first.
We forbade him] I do not see that we have any right to attribute any other motive to John than that which he himself owns-because he followed not us-because he did not attach himself constantly to thee, as we do, we thought he could not be in a proper spirit.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Here a question arises worthy of our discussion a little: Seeing these miraculous operations were performed by a Divine power, and for such an end as the confirmation of Christs Divine power, how could any one cast out devils in the name of Christ, and yet not follow him and his disciples?
1. It is apparent that this person was no enemy to Christ or his gospel, by what our Saviour saith, both in Mar 9:39 and in Mar 9:40.
2. It is evident that the casting out of devils was no saving effect of the Holy Spirit. Christ saith, Mat 7:22, that some should say, In thy name have we cast out devils, to whom in the day of judgment he would say, Depart from me, I know you not, ye that work iniquity.
3. It is plain that this man was no such person as Scevas sons, of whom we read Act 19:14-16, for the devils resisted them, though they also used the name of Christ.
It was a time exceedingly famous for some of the more extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and it is not to be wondered if some in this time, for the glory of God, received some crumbs of that plentiful benevolence, though they were but imperfect disciples, yet being no enemies. Caiaphas prophesied, Joh 11:51,52; and though I do think that the children of the Pharisees, mentioned, Mat 12:27, as persons that cast out devils, is best interpreted of those sent out by Christ, (the twelve and the seventy), yet some are of another mind. Some think this man, though he did not follow Christ and his disciples as a constant companion, yet was one who favoured and had received the gospel; or else one of Johns disciples, and so one who, though he was not formally joined with the followers of Christ, yet was a friend of that great Bridegroom. So as John and the rest, forbidding him, seemed to be guilty of two no small errors:
1. Envying for Christs sake, as Joshua did for Mosess sake, Num 11:28, as Johns disciples did for their masters sake, Joh 3:26, willing that Christ, and those whom he sent out, should have all the honour of those miraculous operations.
2. Limiting the grace of Christ to that congregation which followed Christ, and the twelve; a thing that good men are too prone unto.
How much better was the spirit of Paul, who tells us, Phi 1:15,18, that although some preached Christ of envy and strife, yet he rejoiced, and would rejoice, that Christ was preached, whether in pretence, or in truth. Christ would have all his people of such a spirit, as not to hinder, but commend, not to envy, but to rejoice in the doing of good by any, whether they did follow him or did not. Some think that at that time it pleased God, that, for the honour of his Son Jesus Christ, he did concur with those that named his name in such miraculous operations. Sure we are that Christ reproveth John, and commandeth them not to forbid this man, giving this for a reason, That his owning the name of Christ, so far as to use it in such an operation, had at least so much kindness for him as he was no enemy, he would not curse him, nor speak evil of him; which cometh up to that of the apostle, 1Co 12:3,
No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed; and no man can say Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. For he that is not against us is on our part: if a man be not an open enemy to Christ, he ought to be presumed to be his friend, at least so far as not to be discouraged in doing a good work.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
38. And John answered him, saying,Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followethnot us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not usThelink of connection here with the foregoing context lies, weapprehend, in the emphatic words which our Lord had just uttered, “inMy name.” “Oh,” interposes Johnyoung, warm, but notsufficiently apprehending Christ’s teaching in these matters”thatreminds me of something that we have just done, and we should like toknow if we did right. We saw one casting out devils “in Thyname,” and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. Werewe right, or were we wrong?” Answer”Ye were wrong.””But we did it because he followeth not us.” “Nomatter.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And John answered him, saying,…. Taking notice of what Christ just now said, and observing how well pleasing it was to him, to receive in a meek and humble manner, the least believer in his name; and reflecting upon an action, in which he and some of his fellow disciples were concerned, and which he perceived was not so agreeable to this rule of Christ, thought proper to relate it to him; that he might have his sense of it, and give him an opportunity of enlarging on a subject, so suitable to the temper and disposition of this beloved disciple.
Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name: very likely he called him Rabbi, as the Syriac version renders it, or Rabboni, as in Joh 20:16, a title commonly given to Christ, both by his disciples and others: the case related, very probably happened, when the disciples being sent forth by Christ to preach the Gospel and cast out devils, took a tour through Judea and Galilee, where they saw this man. John was not alone; there were others with him, at least another, who was an eyewitness with him; for the apostles were sent out, by two and two: who this man was, is not said, his name is not mentioned, perhaps was unknown to the apostles; though Beza says, in one ancient exemplar it is read, “we knew one”. This person not only attempted to cast out devils, but really did; and that more than one; but in which of Christ’s names he did it, is not expressed; if in the name of the Messiah, Dr. Lightfoot’s conjecture may be right, that he was one of John’s disciples; who had been baptized in the name of the Messiah, that was just expected to come; to whom, as to others of his disciples, was given a power of casting out devils, to make the way of the Messiah more plain; wherefore the reason why he did not cast out devils in the name of Jesus, but in the name of the Messiah, and did not follow him, nor his disciples, was not out of contempt, but ignorance, not knowing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah: or if he cast out devils in the name of Jesus, which seems most likely, he might be, as others think, a disciple of John’s, who really did believe in Jesus, though he did not associate with, his disciples, but continued with the disciples of John: wherefore it is said,
and he followeth not us; was neither one of the twelve apostles; nor one of the seventy disciples; nor even one of the lower class of the professed disciples of Jesus. This clause is omitted in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions:
and we forbad him; going on in this way, casting out any more devils:
because he followeth, not us; was not one of their company, nor any of Christ’s disciples; who had received no authority and commission from Christ, to do what he did: wherefore they feared, that by such an irregular way of proceeding, the dignity of Christ would be lessened, and some dishonour and reproach reflected on him: and besides the honour of Christ, they might consult their own; and their case be too much like that of Joshua, when Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp. This clause is left out in the Vulgate Latin, but stands in all the eastern versions.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Because he followed not us ( ). Note vivid imperfect tense again. John evidently thought to change the subject from the constraint and embarrassment caused by their dispute. So he told about a case of extra zeal on his part expecting praise from Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus had just said in verse 37 raised a doubt in John’s mind as to the propriety of his excessive narrowness. One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one’s own narrow prejudices.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In thy name. John’s conscience is awakened by the Lord ‘s words. They had not received the man who cast out devils in Christ ‘s name.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
THE REBUKE OF SECTARIANISM V. 38-41
1) “And John answered Him, saying,” (ephe auto ho loannes) “Then John (the apostle) said to Him,” as he sat there.
2) ”Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name,” (didaskale eisomen tina en to onomati sou ekballonta daimonia) “Master, we saw a certain one casting out (or expelling) demons in your name,” using your name, probably a disciple of John the Baptist, who had not yet begun following Jesus, Luk 9:49-50.
3) ”And he followeth not us: (hos ouk akolouthei hemin) “Who does not follow us,” fellowship with, associate with, or go along with us, though he cast out demons in Jesus’ name. For every man shall receive his own reward 1Co 3:8. He who gathereth not to the master scatters, Mat 12:30.
4) “And we forbad him,” (kai ekoluomen auton) “And we just forbade him,” told him to stop it, to stop using your name, told him to stop doing good? Why? It does not say he was ”trying to cast out demons,” but doing it, see? Php_1:14-18.
5) “Because he followeth not us.” (hoti ouk akolouthei hemin “Because he simply was not following us, or keeping company with us, an expression of Phariseeism or bigotry, as in Mar 10:13-16; note Moses’ reproof of a similar spirit, Num 11:26-30.
God’s people are always more in number than some of His people, in isolation from others, may often come to think, 1Ki 19:9-18. Elijah thought he was the only one left in Israel, doing God’s work, when God had seven thousand faithful left. He was 7,000 points off. See? Rom 12:3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Mar 9:38
. Master, we saw one. Hence it is evident that the name of Christ was at that time so celebrated, that persons who were not of the number of his intimate disciples used that name, or perhaps even abused it, for I will not venture to avouch any thing on this point as certain. It is possible that he who is here mentioned had embraced the doctrine of Christ, and betaken himself to the performance of miracles with no bad intention; but as Christ bestowed this power on none but those whom he had chosen to be heralds of his Gospel, I think that he had rashly taken, or rather seized upon, this office. Now though he was wrong in making this attempt, and in venturing to imitate the disciples without receiving a command to do so, yet his boldness was not without success: for the Lord was pleased, in this way also, to throw luster around his name, (585) as he sometimes does by means of those of whose ministry he does not approve as lawful. It is not inconsistent with this to say, that one who was endued with special faith followed a blind impulse, and thus proceeded inconsiderately to work miracles.
I now come to John and his companions. They say that they forbade a man to work miracles Why did they not first ask whether or not he was authorized? For now being in a state of doubt and suspense, they ask the opinion of their Master. Hence it follows, that they had rashly taken on themselves the right to forbid; and therefore every man who undertakes more than he knows that he is permitted to do by the word of God is chargeable with rashness. Besides, there is reason to suspect the disciples of Christ of ambition, because they are anxious to maintain their privilege and honor. For how comes it that they all at once forbid a man who is unknown to them to work miracles, but because they wish to be the sole possessors of this right? For they assign the reason, that he followeth not Christ; as much as to say, “He is not one of thy associates, as we are: why then shall he possess equal honor?”
(585) “ Pour avancer la gloire de son nom;” — “to advance the glory of his name.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(38) And John answered him.The incident that follows, omitted by St. Matthew, is recorded by St. Luke in the same connection. It indicates something of the same zeal as that which desired that fire might come from heaven to consume the Samaritans who refused to receive our Lord (Luk. 9:52). The words were so far an answer to what our Lord had said, that they were suggested by it. The disciple desired to show, as in self-vindication, that he not only received his Master, but that he was unwilling to receive any who did not openly follow Him as a disciple. The fact of which he speaks is significant historically as indicating that one of the effects of our Lords work had been to stir up and quicken the spiritual powers of men outside the range of the company of disciples that gathered round Him. They believed in Him, or they would not have used His Name. They were fellow-workers with Him, for they were seeking to rescue the souls of men from frenzy and despair. Their faith was effective, for, as the narrative implies, they not only claimed the power to cast out demons, but did cast them out. The case stood, it is obvious, on an entirely different footing from that of the sons of Sceva, in Act. 19:13-14, which at first sight seems to resemble it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
38. Casting out devils in thy name Among the many who were favoured with our Lord’s ministry, there was, it seems, one at any rate who had true faith in him to so high a degree as to be able, though not an apostle, to work miracles. Followeth not us He probably had received no regular open commission from Christ to preach or work miracles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘John said to him, “Teacher, we saw one casting out devils in your name, and we forbade him because he did not follow us.’
We are reminded here that the disciples did not just rigidly always remain with Jesus. They were given errands to fulfil and they at times went out preaching (we would probably be wrong to assume that they only made two such ventures). Perhaps it was on one such mission that they met the man described. And on that occasion John and at least one other (‘we’) had bridled at the fact that this man dared to exercise the prerogative which they saw as given to the Apostles. Indeed they had forbidden him. Who was he that he should do so? What right had he to so exalt himself? But Jesus will now tell them that they should have realised that the success of the man’s attempts revealed that he was a genuine believer whom God was blessing, (and perhaps underneath John was even himself uneasily conscious of the fact).
John’s attitude revealed his limited viewpoint. Instead of seeing that the man’s success showed that God was with him (which he should have done for Jesus regularly used that as an argument) and giving glory to God Who worked in such remarkable ways, he had been offended because the man dared to use Jesus’ name without being a regular disciple. He did not at that time have the openheartedness that would one day be his. (What a different case this was from certain Jewish exorcists and especially the sons of Sceva (Act 19:13-16) There they were using Jesus name as a magical formula not out of a deep belief in Him).
‘We forbade him.’ Here was a man of a different ‘denomination’. John thought he was presumptious, even blasphemous, and had no right to work in Jesus’ name. He was not ‘one of us’. How often through history these words and Jesus’ wise reply have been ignored. Churches have become wrapped up in themselves and have begun to think that they were the only ones with the truth, and to enforce their own authority. They revealed thereby not their desire for the truth, which is many faceted, but their desire for their own greatness and importance, and their unwillingness to be true servants of Christ. They wanted to be the masters. But Jesus here made clear that when a man sought to please God, even if he was outside the ‘gathering’ (the congregation, the church), and God blessed his work, it was evidence that God was with him and he should not therefore be halted in his work for God.
‘Because he did not follow us.’ The exact wording is unsure but the meaning is clear. He was not a recognised ‘follower’. The early authorities are divided between ‘who did not follow us’ and ‘because he did not follow us’. Compare Luk 9:50 which may suggest the latter was by assimilation. But notice the ‘us’. There is already a hint in this of a feeling of superiority.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Jewish Exorcist Who Acted In His Name (9:38-41).
Talk about greatness and of those who do things ‘in the name of Jesus’ seems to have stirred John’s mind to consider something that had happened in the past that may well have been on his conscience, and he took this opportunity to seek to justify himself. Possibly he thought he would be commended for his action. But he had done exactly the opposite of what Jesus was talking about.
Analysis.
a
b But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him. For there is no man who will do a work of power in My name and be able quickly to speak evil of Me” (Mar 9:38-40).
c “For he who is not against us is for us” (Mar 9:40).
b “For whoever will give you a cup of water to drink ‘because you are Messiah’s’ (Mar 9:41 a).
a “Truly I tell you he will assuredly not lose his reward” (Mar 9:41).
Note that in ‘a’ John had forbidden doing good in His name, while in the parallel such a person would gain a reward from God. In ‘b’ they must not forbid those who genuinely act in His Name, and in the parallel he refers to one who does do a genuine act in His Name. Central in ‘c’ is the fact that he who is not against us is for us.
Once again the idea is of those who act in Jesus’ Name. In these cases it was someone who was seeking to relieve the needs of others with no concern for greatness or recognition. Their heart s were right towards Jesus and towards God, and they should therefore be encouraged.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An interruption:
v. 38. And John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him because he followeth not us.
v. 39. But Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name that can lightly speak evil of Me.
v. 40. For he that is not against us is on our part. John, gentle John, whose mildness and uniform charitableness has justly become proverbial, at this time was still a true “son of thunder,” as Jesus had called him. His zeal and impetuosity was in danger of doing much more harm than good. He is eager to make a good impression on Jesus at this time, and so he interrupts the Master to tell about an experience which he had had. In their work they had run across a man who was exorcising, casting out demons. Ordinarily, such exorcists conjured with the name of some Old Testament saint or patriarch. But this man used the name of Christ, since he had heard of Him and had probably seen Him expelling demons. This man did not belong to the little band of disciples, he was going over the field on his own responsibility. John’s zeal, therefore, had caused him to make an effort at preventing his work (conative imperfect). John’s idea was that he had done a good, a commendable thing before the Lord, and eagerly looked forward to the praise which he felt must be forthcoming. But Jesus disappoints him grievously. He censures John for this action on his part. So long as that exorcist was using the name of Jesus Reverently, so long as he was employing it for the purpose of performing miracles for the good of people, so long he would not circulate evil reports and blasphemies concerning the Savior. In a case of this kind it is true that everyone not working against Jesus is aiding Him. The same thought is employed by Paul, Php_1:14-19 . In false intolerance and legalistic conduct there is often a good deal of presumption and jealousy. We have no right to expect all to serve the Lord in the same way, since gifts and ability are diversified. If others cannot bring the services and sacrifices for Christ which we think proper, we have no right to question the sincerity of their Christianity.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mar 9:38. Master, we saw one, &c. Some commentators have supposed, that this was one of the Baptist’s disciples, who, though he did not follow Christ with the rest, had been taught by his Master to acknowledge him as the Messiah, and entertained so great a veneration for him, that he attempted to cast out devils in his name. Or if the character given of this person, he followeth not with us, (see Luk 9:49.) and the apostles’ prohibition, we forbad him, are thought inconsistent with the above mentioned opinion, we may suppose that he was an exorcist, like the seven sons of Sceva (Act 19:14.); who, having seen the miracles which the apostles had performed in their Master’s name, while out on their first mission, thought there might be some great occult virtue in it, and so made use of it in his exorcisms, as Sceva’s sons did in theirs, but with better success; for God might see reason now to grant that efficacy to such adjurations, which he afterwards denied, when the evidences of the Gospel were proposed so much more distinctly and fully after the descent of the Holy Spirit. See on Mar 9:40.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mar 9:38-40 . Comp. Luk 9:49-50 (not in Matthew). The connection of thought lies in . . ; the disciples had done the opposite of the in the case of one, who had uttered the name of Jesus . Comp. Schleiermacher, Luk. p. 153 f.; Fritzsche, Olshausen, Ebrard, p. 447 f. So John came to his question. Bengel well says: “dubitationem hanc videtur in pectore aliquamdiu gessisse, dum opportune earn promeret.” But Strauss, I. p. 642, and de Wette (comp. also Bleek), attribute this connection of thought merely to the reporter (Luke , whom Mark follows), who, on the ground of the . , has inserted just here the traditional fragment. This is improbable; such casual annexations are more natural in real living dialogue, and the reflection of the reporter would have found more appropriate places for their insertion, such as after Mar 6:30 .
. .] by means of Thy name , by the utterance of it. Comp. Mat 7:22 ; Act 3:6 ; Act 19:13 . The exorcist in our passage was not an impostor, but a believer; yet not one belonging to the constant followers of Jesus, although his faith was not perhaps merely elementary, but, on the contrary, even capable of miracles. What he had done appeared to the disciples as a privilege still reserved for the narrower circle, and as an usurpation outside of it.
. , and then again . ] John brings this point very urgently forward as the motive of the disciples’ procedure (it is no “intolerabilis loquacitas,” of which Fritzsche accuses the textus receptus ).
(see the critical remarks): the imperfect , following the aorist, makes us dwell on the main point of the narrative. See Khner, II. p. 74.
Mar 9:39 f. Application : Of such a man, who, even without belonging to our circle, has nevertheless attained to such an energetic faith in me as to do a miracle on the basis of my name, there is no reason to apprehend any speedy change into reviling enmity against me. His experience will retain him for us, even although he has not come to his authorization, as ye have, in the way of immediate fellowship with me. It is obvious, moreover, from this passage how powerfully the word and work of Jesus had awakened in individuals even beyond the circle of His constant followers a higher power, which even performed miracles; thus sparks, from which flamed forth the power of a higher life, had fallen and kindled beyond the circle of disciples, and Jesus desires to see the results unchecked. Some have found in this man who followed not with the company of the Twelve the Pauline Christians , whom Mark makes to be judged of by Jesus only with more tenderness and tolerance than at Mat 7:21 f. (Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 140 [127] ); this is more than exaggerated ingenuity; it is the invention of a criticism, the results of which are its own presuppositions.
The construction is regular, and designates the ethical possibility.
] soon (Mat 5:25 , al. ; Sir 6:18 ; Sir 48:20 ; Plato, Conv. p. 184 A; Tim. p. 73 A; Xen. Cyr. 1:1. 1), not: lightly , which might be signified by , Rom 5:7 ; Phm 1:15 .
[127] See also his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 317 f., where likewise quite untenable grounds are adduced for the above opinion. In the answer of Jesus, Eichthal sees even a specimen of good but not moral tactics , and holds that the narrative is an interpolation.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followed not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part. (41) For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. (42) And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
I cannot offer a better improvement, on this very interesting passage, according to my view of it, and if so be the LORD the HOLY GHOST is the teacher, both of him that writes and him that reads, than to ob serve, that here is drawn, and by the LORD himself, the line of distinction, between what the Prophet, ages before declared, the righteous and the wicked; between him that serveth GOD and him that serveth him not. Mal 3:18 . Every circumstance in the word of GOD tends to the confirmation, that the two grand distinctions in life, how diversified soever they may appear to our dim sighted view; are formed between the Church of CHRIST and the ungodly world, the seed of the woman, and the spirit which worketh in the children of disobedience. The language of CHRIST is decisive, he that is not against us, is on our part. And the LORD hath very largely set the same solemn truth forth in all his discourses. The good seed and the tares, the sheep and the goats, the wise virgins and the foolish. And as they are perfectly distinct in their origin, their nature, and connection, so are they in all their progress, condition, and termination. There is nothing that can be called neutral, or of a middle state. To one or the other of these different kingdom all belong, and so will remain to all eternity. Reader! it is blessed, when under the Spirit’s teaching, we discover our union with CHRIST, and consequently our interest in CHRIST. Luk 12:32 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Ver. 38. And John answered him ] John was soon sated with that sad discourse of our Saviour, and begins a relation of another business, little to the purpose.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
38. ] Only found besides in Luk 9:49-50 .
Notice the repetition of . . as characteristic of Mark. The connexion of this remark with what goes before, is: ‘If the receiving any one, even a little child, in thy Name , be receiving Thee; were we doing right when we forbade one who used thy Name , but did not follow us?’ “Observent hoc,” says Bengel, “ qui charismata alligant successioni canonic .” This man actually did what the very Apostles themselves were specially appointed to do: and our Lord, so far from prohibiting, encourages him: see Num 11:26-29 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 9:38-41 . A reminiscence (Luk 9:49-50 ). Probably an incident of the Galilean mission, introduced without connecting particle, therefore (Weiss) connection purely topical; suggested (Holtz., H. C.) to the evangelist by the expression . in Mar 9:37 , answering to . . . in Mar 9:38 . .: exorcists usually conjured with some name, Abraham, Solomon; this one used the name of Jesus, implying some measure of faith in His worth and power. , imperfect, taken by most as implying repeated interdicts, but it may be the conative imperfect = we tried to prevent him. , he did not follow us; the reason for the prohibition. The aloofness of the exorcist is represented as still continuing in the words (T. R.).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 9:38-41
38John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40For he who is not against us is for us. 41For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.”
Mar 9:38 “and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us” There are several variants in the Greek manuscripts. This verse is hard to interpret. This caused ancient scribes to modify it. The reading most modern English versions accept (following the UBS4) is found in MSS and B and the Syriac translation tradition.
Mar 9:39 “‘Do not hinder him'” This is a present imperative with a negative particle, which usually implies the stopping of an act in process.
Mar 9:40 “For he who is not against us is for us” Jesus often used cultural proverbs in His teaching (cf. Mar 2:17; Mar 2:21-22; Mar 3:27; Mar 4:21-22; Mar 4:25; Mar 7:15; Mar 8:35-37; Mar 9:40; Mar 9:50; Mar 10:25; Mar 10:27; Mar 10:31; Mar 10:43-44). Compare this with Mat 12:30 and Luk 11:23.
There is an interesting discussion of the seeming contradiction between Mar 9:40 and Luk 11:23 in Hard Sayings of the Bible published by IVP, pp. 466-467. This book is a helpful resource by well-known, evangelical scholars. They assert that the contextual settings of the references remove the seeming discrepancy.
Mar 9:41 See the parallel passages in Mat 10:42; Mat 25:40. There is a sharp contrast between Mar 9:38-41 and Mar 9:42-48. Those not officially connected with Jesus are affirmed in their good deeds, but those who know Him are warned in strong metaphors about their responsibility to new believers. This shocking paradox illustrates the truth of Mar 9:33-37.
Also this verse mentions kingdom rewards for those who faithfully serve (cf. Mar 9:41; Mar 10:21; Mar 10:28-31 and several times in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Mat 5:12; Mat 5:46; Mat 6:5-6; Mat 6:16-21). It is hard to balance a free salvation in the finished work of Christ and believers’ covenant responsibilities to live out their faith.
It is also hard to balance the NT concept of degree of rewards and punishment (cf. Matt. 10:45; Mat 11:22; Mat 18:6; Mat 25:21; Mat 25:23; Mar 12:40; Luk 12:47-48; Luk 20:47). See Special Topic at Mar 12:40.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
John answered. His conscience was touched; for he remembered what he had done, and confessed it.
devils = demons.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
38.] Only found besides in Luk 9:49-50.
Notice the repetition of . . as characteristic of Mark. The connexion of this remark with what goes before, is: If the receiving any one, even a little child, in thy Name, be receiving Thee; were we doing right when we forbade one who used thy Name, but did not follow us? Observent hoc, says Bengel, qui charismata alligant successioni canonic. This man actually did what the very Apostles themselves were specially appointed to do: and our Lord, so far from prohibiting, encourages him: see Num 11:26-29.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 9:38. , answered) The connection of the words of John with the preceding words of Jesus is manifold. The power of the name of Christ is asserted in the words of both, Mar 9:37-38; Mar 9:41. The disciples had previously discussed with one another, which among them should be the greater: now they are made to perceive, by the teaching of our Lords words, that they are not even to despise others. If Christ, and faith in Him, has place in little children [of whom not even the one, of whom mention is made in Mar 9:36, was following Jesus.-V. g.], it might also have place in that person, whom they had forbidden. Hence there is manifested the moderation of John and his candour: he seems to have carried this doubt for some time in his breast, until he could, at a suitable opportunity, bring it forward.–, us) The apostles, in subordination to Thee.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mar 9:38-50
11. JOHN’S JEALOUSY, AND
REMARK ABOUT OFFENSES
Mar 9:38-50
(Mat 18:6-9)
38 John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name;–What Christ had said regarding his little ones caused John to speak of a recent occurrence. Having found one who did not accompany the apostles casting out demons, they forbade him. This one casting out demons did it by Christ’s authority–in his name. He did not merely attempt, but actually cast out demons. He seems to have been a follower of Jesus, though he did not accompany Jesus and the twelve.
and we forbade him,–John probably took a leading part in this. The faith of the apostles was very imperfect at this time, and doubtless he of whom he spake had very crude ideas of Jesus, and yet had faith enough to work miracles in his name.
because he followed not us.–That is, he was not one of the immediate attendants of Jesus. Seeing such a man casting out demons excited John’s jealousy, because he thought that no others than the chosen twelve ought to be honored with this power. Such jealousy in regard to official prerogative is a very common passion, and one against which men occupying positions of trust and authority should be constantly on their guard. Luke (Luk 9:49) says, “He followeth not with us.” I take it that he was a disciple but did not travel with Christ and the twelve.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not:–There was a degree of prejudice toward the person referred to that Christ did not approve of, and the apostles did wrong in hindering his work. Do not prevent him or anyone else in a similar position from doing good. If he can work a miracle in my name, it is sufficient proof of attachment to me, and he should not be prevented. If the man had been an enemy of truth, it would have been right to forbid him; but, according to John’s own statement, he was casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and this showed he was a friend. He was working to build up the cause of Christ.
for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me.–The meaning is that he whom God gave the power of working miracles by that gave evidence that he could not soon be found among the enemies of Christ. He ought not, therefore, to be prevented from doing it. Jesus neither praises nor condemns the man for following an independent course–for working as an individual–and not working with the disciples. Christians may do acceptable work for the Lord in two ways. (1) As an individual. (2) Through the church. These are the only two ways in which a Christian can work and meet God’s approval. Here we have an example of a disciple of Christ working as an individual. Christ declares that he must not be forbidden, and that those who work the same kind of work that we do should be regarded, not as enemies, but allies. Many, in every period of church history, have spent their lives in copying John’s mistake. They have labored to stop every one who will not work for Jesus in their way from working for Jesus at all. Christians should rejoice in all the good done by others, whether they agree in all things or not. We ought to accept all teaching and practice by others that are authorized by Christ.
40 For he that is not against us is for us.–Here, our Lord clinches his argument. There is no neutral ground in the contest between God and sin. A man is either for or against Christ.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s,–Matthew (Mat 10:41) says, “In the name of a prophet.” He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet, or a righteous man because he is a righteous man, or who gives a drink of water to a disciple because he is a disciple, distinctly recognizes the person’s relation to Christ as the ground of the act, and to that extent Christ is honored by the act. Not so, however, with him who performs a similar act in the name of humanity, or because the recipient is a man.
verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.–The great power of expelling demons should be rewarded the faithful, unknown disciple, whom the apostles had sought to hinder, and not only such great things as that, but any approved service, however simple and commonplace, should also be amply rewarded. This contains a promise which reaches to the present day. Miracles have ceased, hut the time has not passed when acts of kindness in the name of Christ are out of date. It yet behooves every disciple to abound in every good word and work, seeing their labor shall not be in vain in the Lord. (1Co 15:58.) Matthew (Mat 10:41) says he “shall receive a prophet’s reward.” A prophet’s reward is not synonymous with final salvation; for while it is true that in heaven we will have full reward for all the good we do on earth, we will have infinitely more than this, and our admission into heaven is a matter of grace, and not of reward. So, then, the promise of the text does not imply the salvation of all that receive a prophet’s reward, but simply that he shall be rewarded. If he be a pardoned man, he may receive his reward in heaven; if not, he will receive it only on earth.
42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me–“Little ones” are not infants for the reason they cannot believe on Christ; and the little ones here mentioned believe on him. No ground here for infant baptism.
to stumble,–While the path to honor and glory was of easy access, by ministering to the wants of Christ’s disciples, the way to shame, condemnation, and death was possible by causing them to stumble. “Stumble” here means to offend. That is, to put temptations before others that induce them to sin.
it were better for him if a great millstone–This was not the common handstone which was turned by women (Mat 24:41), but the larger kind, which was turned by the strength of an animal–usually the ass.
were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. — Contentions as to who shall be greatest always give offense, and at the same time, by exciting evil passions, they ensnare the persons engaged in them. Jesus desired that his disciples should see this tendency of their discussion (verse 33), and to show how fearful the final result would be to the offender, he assures them that it were better for such to have a millstone hung to his neck, and to be cast into the sea. It were better, because his actual fate will be worse than that. (Mat 18:8-9.)
43-48 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut if off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell. And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.–“Hand,” “foot,” and “eye” are the most valuable of the visible members of the human body, and here used to denote anything peculiarly dear and valuable–the dearest objects of one’s desires–the honors, possessions, or enjoyments he most prizes. If these “offend thee”–cause thee to stumble–to sin–to fall away. That is, if the dearest object of your desire causes thee to do this, “cut it off,” “pluck it out.” That is, mortify and subdue the passions, evil desires, or inclinations which animate the hand, the foot, or the eye, let the conflict cost what it may. (Col 3:5; Gal 5:24.) “Into hell,” Gehenna, which is here correctly translated, is hell. Jesus here shows the sense in which he uses the word by adding the explanatory clause, “into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Hell, then, is equivalent to the fire that never shall be quenched. It is also placed here in opposition to “life”; “It is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell.” The life here referred to is not the temporal life, nor the Christian life, into both of which the disciples addressed had already entered; but eternal life, into which they had not yet entered.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire.–Perhaps no passage in the New Testament has given more perplexity to commentators than this, and it may be impossible now to fix its precise meaning. It cannot be successfully denied but that the word “for” introduces the verse as a reason for the solemn declaration in verses 43-48. “Every one,” is limited to every one who, contrary to the teaching just given in the context, refusing to cut off the offending hand, or to pluck out the offending eye. Jesus had just taught that all such would be cast into hell-fire; it is now stated that every such one shall be salted with fire. As salt, on account of its power to preserve meats, is the symbol of perpetuity, to be salted with fire is to be perpetually permeated by fire, or to be kept perpetually in a state of the severest pain. This passage kills the annihilation theory.
“Every one,” that is, every one of them mentioned above, who refuses to cut off a right hand and pluck out a right eye that is, to mortify their bosom lusts and beloved corruptions, which are as dear as a right hand or a right eye. All such wicked and unmortified persons shall be salted with fire. That is, thrown into hell-fire where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. Their being salted with fire imports and implies that as to their beings they shall be preserved even as salt preserves things from corruption that they may be the objects of the eternal wrath of God.
50 Salt is good:–And useful for purifying and preserving. (2Ki 2:19-22.) A general statement. Salt is here used, as in the preceding verse, to symbolize that principle in Christian life which leads to perseverance amid all required self-sacrifice.
Every Christian who has given himself a real sacrifice unto God shall be salted, not with fire to be destroyed, but with salt–the grace of mortification to be preserved and kept savory. The grace of mortification is that to the soul which salt is to the body. It preserves it from putrefaction and renders it savory. Every Christian ought to be a spiritual sacrifice unto God. There is a putrid and corrupt part in every Christian which must be purged out. The grace of mortification is the salt which must clarify the soul, and with which every sacrifice must be salted.
but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it?–If the salt has lost its saltness it cannot be recovered. It is good for nothing. If a Christian lose the power of perseverance, there is no restoration for him.
Have salt in yourselves,–Have the preserving and purifying influences of divine grace and the spirit of Christ in your heart. Maintain in yourselves the quality of perseverance by making every sacrifice necessary thereto–keep all evil desires and causes leading to sin pruned off.
and be at peace one with another.–Among yourselves. Do not exercise an ambitious and contentious spirit, or an uncharitable zeal; but according with the spirit of Christianity, act out the principles of the grace of God and be at peace among yourselves. Peace is one of the fruits of the spirit. (Gal 5:22.) The contention of the apostles as to who should be greatest in the kingdom of God (verses 33, 34), and their jealousy toward the brother who had been casting out demons in the name of Christ (verse 38), were calculated to impair this quality by causing alienations and discouragements among themselves. Strife among them would destroy their salt; peace would tend to preserve it. Let each one retain a seasoning virtue in himself that he may sweeten and season others even all with whom he converses, and thus upholding union and peace one with another will declare that you have the saving qualities of salt in yourselves. In so doing you will avoid contention and quarreling, struggling for places, honors, and office and seek each other’s welfare and thus be the means of honoring and glorifying God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
CHAPTER 41
The Salt of Hell and the Salt of Grace
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
(Mar 9:38-50)
Blessed are they to whom God by his Spirit gives grace to discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not (Mal 3:18). Our Saviors language here is decisive. He that is not against us is on our part. No one can be neutral. Either we serve Christ, or we are opposed to Christ. There is no middle ground. It was said of Solomon, Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and that hear thy wisdom (1Ki 10:8). How much more must it be said of Christ our great King, Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and that hear thy wisdom!
Other Brethren
The first thing to be learned from this passage is the fact that all who truly serve the Lord Jesus Christ are brethren (Mar 9:38-42). How sad it is for brethren to isolate themselves from one another! And for brethren to oppose one another is utterly inexcusable. Yet, that is precisely what we see the Apostle John doing here. He said to the Lord Jesus, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. The man was doing good. He was casting out devils in the name of Christ. But he was not numbered among the Lords disciples. He was not a member of their little band. He was fighting the same war, but with a different battalion. That did not set well with John. Therefore he rebuked the man.
Johns rebuke of this man did not set well with the Lord Jesus. He said to John, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
It was an offense to John to see a man casting out devils in the name of Christ who was not numbered among his apostles, who was unknown to the Lords known disciples, and was not identified with them. It seemed strange to him that a man was casting out devils in the name of Christ, doing the same work they were doing, who was not associated in any way with the apostles of Christ. Perhaps this man was a disciple of John the Baptist. Perhaps not. We are not told. However, we are told that our Lord Jesus rebuked John for rebuking him. There is a reason for that.
The sad fact is, we are all so proud that we are all prone to think that nothing good can be done unless it is done by us, or by one of those with whom we are identified.
We must never be tolerant toward those who oppose the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. Let men call us bigots and slander us as narrow-minded sectarians, if they must. Our responsibility is clear with regard to every form of false religion, every form of freewill, works religion. Our God says to all who would follow him, Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2Co 6:17; Rev 18:4; Isa 48:20; Isa 52:11-12; Jer 50:8; Jer 50:45; Gal 1:6-9; 1Jn 4:1; 2Jn 1:9-11).
I say to all who embrace as brethren those who oppose our God and the gospel of his grace, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? (2Ch 19:2). There is absolutely no place for compromise with regard to the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ. That is the cursed way of Balaam. We must never yield to it. Those who do not believe and preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ are not with us, but against us. They are not the servants of Christ, but the servants of Satan. They do not do good to the souls of men, but ruin them. With regard to such men, the Lord Jesus Christ spoke very plainly in Mat 12:30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
But here in Mark our Lord Jesus teaches us to bend over backwards and always to be lenient with those who preach the gospel, but, for some reason, do not identify themselves with us. Sometimes faithful men are divided. There came a time when Paul and Barnabas, both faithful men, had to part company. That is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. As was the case in Elijahs day, so it is today. God still has his thousands who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Many of them are simply not known to one another. But if they preach the same message we preach and serve the same Master we serve, they are our brethren. Even if they act out of envy, jealousy, and strife, if they preach the gospel of Christ, let us never be found fighting against them.
There are two relevant passages we should look at which will help us in understanding our Masters proverbial statement here in Mark (Num 11:27-29; Php 1:15-18).
And there ran a young man and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORDS people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Num 11:27-29)
Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. (Php 1:15-18)
Let us never be found opposing Christ (Mar 9:41-42). Those who serve Christ in any way, no matter how insignificant it may seem to be, shall be honored by Christ. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. It is better that a person had never been born than that he be found persecuting and opposing the Lords children. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
With those things in mind, let us learn always to be lenient and tolerant toward those who profess to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. We simply do not know who belongs to Christ and who does not. We do not have the ability to discern between sheep and goats, or tares and wheat. Remember, He that is not against us is on our part.
Self-denial
Immediately following this, our Lord Jesus shows us the necessity of rigorous self-denial. In Mar 9:43-48 our Savior tells us plainly that we must willingly give up anything and everything, which stands between us and him. The hand and foot which are to be cut off, and the eye that is to be plucked out, if they offend, if they keep us from following Christ, they are idols which we must destroy with our own hands. Though it is as dear to me as my right eye, my right hand, or my right foot, anything that stands between me and Christ, anything that keeps my soul from him, is to be cut off, no matter how painful and costly (Luk 14:26-27; Luk 14:33). If we would follow Christ, we must go to the cemetery and bury our idols, the sooner the better.
At first sight, our Lords teaching in this regard may seem to be hard and rough. But there is a reason for it. Compliance is absolutely essential. If we do not tear every idol from its pedestal in our hearts, the idol we most cherish is sure to drag us down to hell. If we would follow Christ, if we would be his disciples, we must consecrate ourselves to him day by day with deliberate, unyielding determination (Gal 5:24; 1Co 9:27).
Hells Reality
The third thing plainly revealed in this passage of Scripture is the reality of everlasting hell (Mar 9:43-49). I do not know what hell is, or where it is. I do not know what the fires of hell are, or what the blackness and darkness of hell are. But I do know this The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, warns us repeatedly of a place of torment reserved for the damned, a place where the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched.
These are awful expressions. They call for meditation more than exposition. Ponder them. Consider them. Reflect upon them. Think about them. It matters not whether you regard the language as figurative or literal. If they are taken figuratively, the worm that never dies and the fire that is never quenched are figures of real things.
There is a real place of eternal torment called hell. In hell, the gnawing worm of a guilty conscience never dies or is, to any degree, silenced. In hell the fire of Gods wrath is never quenched. The torments of the damned can never satisfy the wrath and justice of the holy Lord God for sin. Therefore, our Lord makes reference to the sacrifices of the Old Testament in which God required every sacrifice to be salted with salt. In Mar 9:49 he says, For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
If you die in your sins, if you perish without Christ, you will be cast into hell to suffer the everlasting, indescribable horror of the wrath of God. There the worm of your tormenting conscience will relentlessly gnaw at your soul. There the fires of Gods wrath will burn forever. As salt preserves meat from corruption, the fire of hell is such that it preserves the damned from being consumed.
Here, our Lord Jesus tells us that the fires of Gods wrath in hell will do the same thing that salt does to the flesh of slaughtered animals. As the salt preserves the flesh from putrefaction and corruption, so the fire of hell, while burning, torturing, and tormenting the damned, will preserve their bodies and souls in their being forever. In other words, the very fire that burns will keep them from being consumed. Their souls shall never die. Their bodies will not consume away. They will lose none of their powers, faculties, or senses. Rather, they shall all be intensified! That is what our Lord means by men being salted with fire and the fire being unquenchable!
In hell there will be no mercy, no blood atonement, no grace, no Christ, and no hope!
Salt of Grace
In Mar 9:50 our Lord Jesus speaks about the salt of grace and peace. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. Let us make certain that we have the salt of Gods grace in us, that salt of grace which will preserve us and sanctify us in Christ. Do not be satisfied with a mere profession of faith. Make sure you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Do not be satisfied with a religious experience. Be sure you have the salt of Gods grace (2Co 13:5).
And let the children of God have peace with one another. In the Old Testament the covenant of peace is called the covenant of salt (Num 18:19; Num 25:12). Here our Lord Jesus takes opportunity to admonish his disciples, who had just been disputing about who should be greatest, to promote and maintain peace among themselves. It is the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace which is the strength and preserving quality of Gods church in this world. If we would truly promote peace, we must always season our speech with the salt of grace (Col 4:6; Eph 4:29; Rom 12:18; Rom 14:19; 2Co 13:11).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Master: Num 11:26-29, Luk 9:49, Luk 9:50, Luk 11:19
Reciprocal: Num 11:28 – My Lord Mat 12:27 – by whom Mar 10:13 – disciples Act 19:13 – took Phi 1:18 – and I
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 21.
A Lesson in Charity
“And John answered Him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is on our part.”-Mar 9:38-40.
The Occasion.
In these three verses our Lord is still engaged with the training of the Twelve. He had just taught them a lesson in humility; now He teaches them a lesson in tolerance. We must remember, in discussing these various lessons which our Lord taught His disciples, that they are not, as Dr. A. B. Bruce remarks, continuous and set discourses on announced themes. For the most part they are of the nature of Socratic dialogues, and are often suggested by a remark made or a question asked by one of the disciples. The immediate occasion of this lesson in charity was John’s account of a meeting which he and his brother, or possibly all the twelve, had with a man who was casting out devils in the name of Christ, but was not a follower of the Master.
What was it that caused John to tell the story at this particular juncture? Possibly it was an attempt to change the subject, and to divert the conversation into another channel. John smarted under the rebuke just administered to himself and the other Apostles for their strife about places. Perhaps the consciousness that he and his brother aspired to the highest thrones in the kingdom made him feel that the rebuke was almost specially aimed at him. So he thought he would let the Lord know that if he had certain ambitions for himself, he was also active in his Master’s service, and jealous for His honour. But I prefer to think that John recalled the incident because, in the light of what Jesus had just said, it suddenly dawned upon him that he had committed a great mistake in seeking to stop the man at all. For it was in Christ’s name this exorcist had been doing his work. And, instead of “receiving” him, as the Lord’s words seemed to suggest he ought to have done, he had denounced him, sought to hinder him, repudiated him. Had he acted rightly in so doing? Up to that moment probably John had been rather proud of his action. But, in view of what Jesus said, he became doubtful and uneasy. So, with a frankness and a candour that are altogether to his credit, he told his Master the whole story, that He might pass judgment upon it.
The Motives.
Now what were the motives that lay behind the interdict which the Apostles sought to lay upon this unrecognised worker? There may have been in it a touch of jealousy for the Master’s honour. They may have felt that a man who did not openly confess Christ by joining the circle of His avowed disciples, had no right to use His name. And so they may have honestly thought they were defending and asserting the honour of Christ by forbidding him any more to use Christ’s name. It is a good thing to be “very jealous of the Lord,” but we have need to be careful that we are jealous after a godly sort. Some of the most monstrous crimes this world has seen perpetrated have been committed from a mistaken sense of jealousy for the honour of God. But, from the way in which the narrative is worded, one would gather that jealousy for the honour of God was not half so powerful a motive as personal pique. A sense of wounded dignity breathes through the very words. “We forbade him, because he followed not us.” They looked upon themselves as the only accredited and authorised agents of the Lord Jesus, and they were indignant that an outsider should take to himself what they considered their prerogatives.
The Act.
But, whatever the motives that animated them, the practical result was an act of exclusiveness, and narrowness and intolerance. They ruled this man, whom they ought to have received as a brother, out of their communion; they tried to stop his work; they denied his right to work at all, and all because he did not belong to their little circle. They never stayed to inquire what kind of a man he was; they paid no heed to the fact that he must have had some kind of faith in Christ, or he would never have used Christ’s name; they disregarded the fact that the man’s ministry was obviously owned and blessed of God. They denied the right of anyone outside their circle to work in the name of Christ at all; they set themselves up as the exclusive channels of Christ’s grace, and the sole dispensers of His power. “We forbade him,” says John, not “because he followed not Thee”-but “because he followed not us.”
The Spirit of Intolerance.
Is there any lesson for us in all this? Has it any pertinency for our own day? Our Lord, as we shall see in a moment, utterly and wholly repudiated this exclusive and intolerant spirit. Did His rebuke eradicate it for ever from the hearts of His disciples? Is this the first and last instance of narrowness and intolerance we read of in the Christian Church? Alas, no! In spite of this rebuke and repudiation of our Lord, the hearts of many of His disciples in every age have been filled with this narrow and intolerant spirit. It has resulted in crimes that bring the blush of shame to the cheek. It developed into the faggot and the fire. It substituted, as Hugh Black says, the doctrine of the stake for the doctrine of the cross. It set up the Inquisition in Spain. It kindled the fires in Smithfield. It drove the Pilgrim Fathers across the seas; it silenced Richard Baxter; it flung John Bunyan for twelve years into Bedford Gaol; it drove John Wesley from the pulpit to the fields.
And what about to-day? Alas, the same spirit prevails. You can trace much of the strife and consequent weakness and shame of Christ’s Church back to it. We are all of us far too prone to think our way is the only way. We are far too ready to forbid other men, because they follow not us. And we rend and paralyse and shame the Church of Christ in consequence.
Christ’s Lesson in Tolerance.
Now let us turn to our Lord’s comment on John’s story. It was not for nothing John’s conscience had been uneasy. The answer Christ made confirmed him in his fears that their action had been unwarrantable and wrong. For the recital of the story calls forth from our Lord’s lips a short and sharp rebuke. “Forbid him not,” He said. They had no right to place this man under an interdict, or to try and stop him in his gracious work. Christ will have none of their exclusiveness and intolerance. And He proceeds to give His reasons, and in these reasons the voices of wisdom and charity unite. The first reason is personal to the particular man in question. “There is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able quickly to speak evil of Me” (Mar 9:39). They had treated this man as if he were an enemy. They could not have acted more harshly by him, had he been an open and determined foe. But, said Jesus, he clearly was not an enemy. Nor was he likely easily to become one. His use of the name of Christ to a certain degree committed him to the cause of Christ. They ought to have treated him, though outside their circle, as an ally and a friend. “For there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able quickly to speak evil of Me.” The second reason He casts into the form of a general truth. “For he that is not against us is for us.”
Contrasted Sayings.
This maxim recalls another like it, and yet unlike. In Mat 12:30 I find Jesus saying, “He that is not with Me is against Me.” Now the commentators all tell me that these two sayings, though apparently contradictory, are really not contradictory, but supplementary. And in all kinds of ingenious ways they proceed to reconcile the two. “The principle in both sayings is the same,” says Dr. Salmond. “It is the simple principle that we cannot be for and against, friend and foe at the same time.” “The two sayings,” is Dr. Bruce’s comment, “are harmonised by a truth underlying both-that the cardinal matter in spiritual character is the bias of the heart. If the heart of a man be with me, then though by ignorance and error, isolation from those who are avowedly my friends, he may seem to be against me, he is really for me. On the other hand, if a man be not in heart with me (e.g. the Pharisees), then though by his orthodoxy and zeal he may seem to be on God’s side, and therefore on mine, he is really against me.” The impossibility of neutrality in the spiritual sphere-this, according to the commentators, is the great truth that both sayings are meant to emphasize. But, ingenious though these explanations are, I do not think they really meet the difficulty; for in the one passage, as Dr. Chadwick puts it, “seeming neutrality is reckoned as friendship, while in the other it is denounced as enmity.”
-Reconciled.
Doubtless the true explanation is to be found in a closer examination of the two sayings. The saying in Matthew refers exclusively to a man’s relations to Christ. “He that is not with Me is against Me”; and that is inevitably so. There can be no such thing as a neutral attitude towards Christ. The man who says that he simply is indifferent to Christ, is unwittingly, perhaps, increasing the mass of opposition that has to be overcome by Him. But in the saying we have just now under consideration it is His disciples rather than Himself that Christ has in mind. In Luke’s account, indeed, that is how the saying is given, “He that is not against you is for you.” It is a warning to the disciples not to suppose that loyalty to their organisation, although Christ was with them, was the same thing as loyalty to Him. It was quite possible for people to be outside their circle-not “with them” or “of them,” in that narrow and mechanical sense-and yet to be in Christ and loyal to Him. And if a man was “in Christ” and loyal to Him, even though he did not belong to their circle, he was really “for them”; he was helping on their work and furthering their cause. It was so with this unknown worker. He was not “of them,” in the sense that he did not belong to their circle, but inasmuch as he was doing good and spreading Christ’s name he was really on their side.
A Warning to Ourselves.
And it is so still. The various denominations into which Christ’s Church is divided are not antagonists-if they only knew it, they are allies. Over our furious controversies, and our ugly intolerances, Christ whispers this word, “He that is not against us is for us.” When we consider the great work which all Churches exist to further, people of other communions are seen to be not against us, but for us. It is when we think only of our particular organisations that those not belonging to us seem against us. When we think not of our Church, but of Christ, and Christ’s Kingdom, we see those who belong to other communions, and who worship and work in different ways from ours are not against us, but for us. There is nothing we need more than the increase of the spirit of brotherhood, a frank and unreserved recognition of our deep and real unity in Christ our Lord.
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
8
We notice that no denial was made as to whether the man actually was casting out devils. The complaint was that he was not walking along bodily in the same crowd with Jesus and the twelve. John did not understand that only the apostles were required to “be with him” in that sense. (See chapter 3:14.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[We saw one casting out devils in thy name.] I. Without doubt he truly did this work, whosoever he were. He cast out devils truly and really, and that by the divine power; otherwise Christ had not said those things which he did, “Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me,” etc.
II. Whence then could any one that followed not Christ cast out devils? Or whence could any one that cast out devils not follow Christ?
I answer: We suppose,
I. That this man cast not out devils in the name of Jesus, but in the name of Christ, or Messias: and that it was not out of contempt that he followed not Jesus, but out of ignorance; namely, because he knew not yet that Jesus was the Messias.
II. We therefore conjecture that he had been heretofore some disciple of John, who had received his baptism in the name of the Messias now speedily to come, (which all the disciples of John had) but he knew not as yet that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which John himself knew not until it was revealed to him from heaven.
III. It is probable, therefore, that God granted the gifts of miracles to some lately baptized by John, to do them in the name of the Messias; and that, to lay a plainer way for the receiving of the Messias, when he should manifest himself under the name of ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’
See Mar 9:41; In my name, because ye belong to Christ; and Mar 13:6, “Many shall come in my name”; not in the name of Jesus, but in the name of the Messias: for those false prophets assumed to themselves the name of the Messias, to bring to nought the name of Jesus. That, Joh 16:24; “Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name,” differs not much from this sense: ‘The apostles poured out their prayers, and all the holy men theirs, in the name of the Messias; but ye have as yet asked nothing in my name Jesus;’ etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
WE see in these verses, the mind of Christ on the great subject of toleration in religion. The apostle John said to Him, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.”
The man was doing a good work without doubt. He was warring on the same side as the apostles, beyond question. But this did not satisfy John. He did not work in the company of the apostles. He did not fight in line with them. And therefore John had forbidden him.-But let us hear now what the great Head of the church decides! “Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us, is on our part.”
Here is a golden rule indeed, and one that human nature sorely needs, and has too often forgotten. Men of all branches of Christ’s Church are apt to think that no good can be done in the world, unless it is done by their own party and denomination. They are so narrow-minded, that they cannot conceive the possibility of working on any other pattern but that which they follow. They make an idol of their own peculiar ecclesiastical machinery, and can see no merit in any other. They are like him who cried when Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp, “My Lord Moses forbid them.” (Num 11:28.)
To this intolerant spirit we owe some of the blackest pages of Church history. Christians have repeatedly persecuted Christians for no better reason than that which is here given by John. They have practically proclaimed to their brethren, “you shall either follow us, or not work for Christ at all.”
Let us be on our guard against this feeling. It is only too near the surface of all our hearts. Let us study to realize that liberal, tolerant spirit which Jesus here recommends, and be thankful for good works wheresoever and by whosoever done. Let us beware of the slightest inclination to stop and check others, merely because they do not choose to adopt our plans, or work by our side. We may think our fellow Christians mistaken in some points. We may fancy that more would be done for Christ, if they would join us, and if all worked in the same way. We may see many evils arising from religious dissensions and divisions.-But all this must not prevent us rejoicing if the works of the devil are destroyed and souls are saved.
Is our neighbor warring against Satan? Is he really trying to labor for Christ? This is the grand question. Better a thousand times that the work should be done by other hands than not done at all. Happy is he who knows something of the spirit of Moses, when he said, “Would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets;”-and of Paul, when he says, “If Christ is preached, I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Num 11:29; Php 1:18.) [Footnote: The remarks of Quesnel on this passage are interesting-and doubly so when we remember that the writer was a Roman Catholic. He says, “That which John here does, is an example of an indiscreet zeal for the interests of Christ. The most holy persons have sometimes occasion to secure themselves from secret emulations. We very easily mingle our own interests with those of God; and our vanity uses the glory of His name only as a veil. A preacher sometimes imagines that his only desire is, that men should follow Christ, and adhere to His word; and it is himself whom he desires they should follow, and to whom he is very glad to find them adhere.”
“Christ suffers many things in His Church, which are done without His mission; but He makes them contribute to the establishment of His kingdom. Whatever reason we may have to fear that some persons will not persevere in goodness, we must, notwithstanding, suffer them to continue their endeavors, when they appear to be any ways useful. God Himself authorizes such persons, since it is He who performs the good in them.”]
We see, for another thing, in these verses, the need of giving up anything that stands between us and the salvation of our souls. The “hand” and the “foot” are to be cut off, and the “eye” to be plucked out, if they offend, or are occasions of falling. The things that are dear to us as eye, foot, or hand, are to be cast off and given up if they injure our souls, whatever pain the sacrifice may cost us.
This is a rule that sounds stern and harsh at first sight. But our loving Master did not give the rule without cause. Compliance with it is absolutely necessary, since neglect of it is the sure way to hell. Our bodily senses are the channels through which many of our most formidable temptations approach us. Our bodily members are ready instruments of evil, but slow to that which is good. The eye, the hand, and the foot are good servants, when under right direction. But they need daily watching, lest they lead us into sin.
Let us resolve by God’s grace to make a practical use of our Lord’s solemn injunction in this place. Let us regard it as the advice of a wise physician, the counsel of a tender father, the warning of a faithful friend. However men may ridicule us for our strictness and preciseness, let us habitually “crucify our flesh with its affections and lusts.” Let us deny ourselves any enjoyment, rather than incur peril of sinning against God. Let us walk in Job’s steps: he says, “I made a covenant with mine eyes.” (Job 31:1.) Let us remember Paul: he says, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away.” (1Co 9:27.)
We see, in the last place, in these verses, the reality, awfulness, and eternity of future punishment. Three times the Lord Jesus speaks of “hell.” Three times He mentions the “worm that never dies.” Three times He says that “the fire is not quenched.”
These are awful expressions. They call for reflection rather than exposition. They should be pondered, considered, and remembered by all professing Christians. It matters little whether we regard them as figurative and emblematic. If they are so, one thing at least is very clear. The worm and the fire are emblems of real things. There is a real hell, and that hell is eternal.
There is no mercy in keeping back from men the subject of hell. Fearful and tremendous as it is, it ought to be pressed on all, as one of the great truths of Christianity. Our loving Savior speaks frequently of it. The apostle John, in the book of Revelation, often describes it. The servants of God in these days must not be ashamed of confessing their belief in it. Were there no boundless mercy in Christ for all that believe in Him, we might well shrink from the awful topic. Were there no precious blood of Christ able to cleanse away all sin, we might well keep silence about the wrath to come. But there is mercy for all who ask in Christ’s name. There is a fountain open for all sin. Let us then boldly and unhesitatingly maintain that there is a hell, and beseech men to flee from it, before it be too late. “Knowing the terrors of the Lord,” the worm, and the fire, let us “persuade men.” (2Co 5:11.) It is not possible to say too much about Christ. But it is quite possible to say too little about hell.
Let the concluding words of our Lord ring in our ears, as we leave the passage:-“Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” Let us make sure that we have in our hearts the saving grace of the Holy Ghost, sanctifying, purifying, preserving from corruption, our whole inward man. Let us watch the grace given to us with daily watchfulness, and pray to be kept from carelessness and sin, lest we be overtaken in faults, bring misery on our consciences, and discredit on our profession. Above all let us live in peace one with another, not seeking great things, or striving for the pre-eminence, but clothed with humility, and loving all who love Christ in sincerity. These seem simple things. But in attending to them is great reward. [Footnote: The last verse but one in the passage now expounded, appears to baffle all the commentators. I allude of course to the words, “Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” The true meaning of these words and their connexion with the context, are problems which seem not yet solved. At all events, not one of the many interpretations which have been hitherto proposed is entirely satisfactory. We must confess that it is one of those knots which are yet untied in the exposition of Scripture.
1. Some think that our Lord is speaking only of the wicked and their future punishment, and that He means-“Every lost soul shall be salted with the fire of hell, even as every sacrifice under the law of Moses is salted with salt.” This appears to be the view held by Whitby.
2. Some think that our Lord is speaking only of the righteous and their fiery trials in this life, by which they are purified and preserved from corruption, and that He means-“Every true disciple of mine shall be as it were salted and passed through the fire of tribulation, even as every sacrifice is salted with salt.” Of those who think that our Lord speaks only of the righteous, some think that the “fire” means not tribulation, and some the work of the Holy Spirit. Cartwright holds the last of these opinions, Junius the first.
3. Some think that in the first clause of the verse, our Lord is speaking of all members of His church, both good and bad, and that His meaning is the same as that of Paul, where He says, “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” (1Co 3:13.) The second clause, they think, describes the preserving effect of grace on the hearts of true believers. According to this view, the meaning of the verse would be-“Every one shall be finally salted, tried, and tested by the fire of the last day; and every one who has offered himself as a living sacrifice to God, shall be salted with grace, and so finally preserved from death and corruption.”
4. Some think that in the first clause of the verse our Lord is speaking of the wicked, and in the second clause of the righteous. According to this view, the sense would be-“Every wicked man shall be salted with fire and punished for evermore; and every living sacrifice to God, or godly man, shall be salted with grace, kept from the power of death, and saved for evermore.”-This is the view of Hammond and Manton. I offer no opinion and make no comment on any of the above views. The objections which might be made against every one of them are neither few nor small. Whether these objections are insuperable or not, is a point on which learned theologians differ widely, and a conclusion, will perhaps never be attained until the Lord appears. My own conviction is, that we must wait for more light, and regard the text at present as one of the “deep things” of God.]
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Mar 9:38. John said to him. Luke: answered, so the E. V. here also. It was an answer in the wide sense; for the command to receive a child in His name would suggest the question of John.
We saw. Probably on their missionary tour.
One casting out demons in thy name. This unknown man had wrought such miracles as the Apostles did and by the same power, though it had not been directly committed to him as to them. He was not a follower of Jesus, yet he believed in the power of our Lord sufficiently to attempt this exorcism. The needed power was given him; undoubtedly to teach the lesson here recorded.
We forbade him. This forbidding may have so disturbed his faith, that he could no longer exorcise.
Because he followeth not us. This repetition is characteristic of Mark. They probably demanded that the man should either stop his activity or join them. How natural!
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The Evangelist here sets down a conference betwixt our Saviour Christ and St. John his disciple.
Where observe, 1. St. John’s relation of a matter of fact to Christ, namely, his for bidding one to cast out devils in Christ’s name, that did not follow Christ as they did, being his professed disciples. Though only the disciples that followd Christ had a commission to work miracles, yet there were others, no enemies to Christ, who, in imitation of the disciples, did attempt to do the like; and God was pleased, for the honour of his son, in whose name they cast out devil’s to give them sometimes success. Almighty God may, and sometimes doth, give success to such actions and enterprizes as are good in themselves, though undertaken by persons that have no lawful call or warrant from God to do them. However, it ws no small confirmation of the truth of Christianity, that Christ’s name was thus powerful, even among those compact with him.
Observe, 2. The action of the disciples towards this person; We forbade him. This showed, 1. Their ignorance, in supposing that none oculd be true disciples, nor work miracles, but such as followed them: We forbade him, because he followed not us. Their rashness, in forbidding him of their own heads, before they had consulted Christ about it. 2. Their envy and emulation; in that they were grieved and discontented at this person’s casting out devils, because he was not a follower of them. O the imperfect compostition of the best of saints! how much weakness, infirmity, and corruption doth John the beloved disciple discover upon this occasion! The sin of envy and emulation against the gifts of God in others, is very natural to man, and to good men; yea, to the best of men. It is as difficult to look upon other men’s gifts without envy, as to look upon our own without pride.
Observe, 3. Our Saviour’s answer and reply: Forbid him not. Because our Saviour would in some manner and measure redound to the glory of his name, although he undertook the matter without sufficient warrant from Christ. We ought not to censure and condemn those who do that which is good in itself, though they fail in the manner of it, and in the means they use for effecting it.
Observe, 4. What encouragement our Saviour gives the world to be kind to his friends and followers: he assures them that even a cup of cold water given for his sake, to such as profess his name, shall not miss of a reward.
Learn thence, That the least office of love and respect, of kindness and charity, shewn to any of the ministers or members of Jesus Christ, for his sake, is represented as done unto himself, and shall be rewarded by himself.
Observe, 5. He shall gain that which he cannot lose, by parting with that which he could not keep.
Observe, 6. What a heinous and grievous sin it is to scandalize or offend any of the disciples of Jesus Christ; he will most severely judge and punish such as give offence to them, by any wrong or injury done unto them, both in this life and the next. It were better a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mar 9:38-40. And John answered him As if he had said, But ought we to receive those who follow not us? Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name Probably this was one of John the Baptists disciples, who believed in Jesus, though he did not yet associate with our Lords disciples. And we forbade him, because he followeth not us How often is the same temper found in us! How readily do we also lust to envy! But how ill does that spirit become a disciple, much more a minister, of the benevolent Jesus! St. Paul had learned a better temper, when he rejoiced that Christ was preached, even by those who were his personal enemies. But to confine religion to them that follow us, is a narrowness of spirit which we should avoid and abhor. Jesus said, &c. Christ here gives us a lovely example of candour and moderation. He was willing to put the best construction on doubtful cases, and to treat as friends those who were not avowed enemies. Perhaps in this instance it was a means of conquering the remainder of prejudice, and perfecting what was wanting in the faith and obedience of these persons. Forbid him not Neither directly nor indirectly discourage or hinder any man, who brings sinners from the power of Satan to God, because he followeth not us, in opinions, modes of worship, or any thing else which does not affect the essence of religion. For he that is not against us, is for us Our Lord had formerly said, He that is not with me, is against me: thereby admonishing his hearers that the war between him and Satan admitted of no neutrality, and that those who were indifferent to him now, would finally be treated as enemies. But here, in another view, he uses a very different proverb; directing his followers to judge of mens characters in the most candid manner; and charitably to hope, that those who did not oppose his cause wished well to it. Upon the whole, we are to be rigorous in judging ourselves, and candid in judging each other.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
BIGOTRY OF THE APOSTLE JOHN
Luk 9:49-50; Mar 9:38-41. And John responded to Him, saying, Teacher we saw a certain one casting out devils in Thy name who does not follow us, and we forbade him, because he does not follow us. And Jesus said, Prevent him not. For there is no one who shall work a miracle in My name who will be able quickly to speak evil of Me [as he will have to backslide first]. For whosoever is not against us, is on our side. And whosoever may give you a cup of water in the name of Christ, because you are His, truly, I say unto you, He shall not lose his reward. There is no doubt but John was the first disciple of our Lord, and during His entire ministry honored, with Peter and James, on the Mount of Transfiguration the resurrection of Jairuss daughter, and in Gethsemane. Besides, he was even epitheted the loving disciple, habitually sitting close by His side, and even leaning on His bosom. That he was characteristic of pre-eminent spirituality from the beginning, growing on him through his long and useful life, till his writings are swelling rivers of love, sweeping down from heaven, the source of his inspiration, can not be doubted. Though he is the speaker on this occasion, making his own confession, you see he includes his comrades, authenticating the conclusion that those apostles actually did forbid that man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus, because he did not follow them. That man deserved their prayers and their encouragement, as well as their cooperation. He was no bogus worker, but was actually casting out the demons. Now, what is the conclusion? They most imperatively needed the fiery baptism of Pentecost, to burn up their bigotry and sectarian prejudice. Read Johns Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse, all of which are swelling rivers of love, and you can not find a solitary vestige of sectarian bigotry or ecclesiastical ostracism.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
This passage has perplexed many over the years. Just what are we supposed to make of such statements by the Lord. Are we not to speak against anyone that operates under the name/guise of the Lord Jesus Christ? How about the Mormons, the Roman church, and other isms that name the name of Christ.
Lightfoot suggests that this man may have been a disciple of John. It could also have been one ofthe thousands that had followed and heard Christ. Possibly one that had seen Christ casting out demons.
The first principle might be that one must mind the context of the comments. They are in Christ’s own time and there were no cults or isms as such yet. Thus this must guide our interpretation.
Second, the man mentioned was casting out demons in the Lord’s name. They named Christ as their authority and they were capable of casting out the demons, which would indicate they had the power and authority in some manner.
Next we see that the Lord mentions that the one could not “lightly speak evil of Me.” Thus we might apply this to the group we might want to speak against does not speak evil of Christ.
To recap, this man most likely was a disciple of the Lord that was out doing the work of the Lord. He spoke with authority, he seemed to have the power over demons and he was not speaking evil of the Lord.
From this we can surely speak out against cults and isms of our own day if they do not give evidence of miracles or works of God, or if they speak evil of Christ. Now, we have some latitude in the final item. They may uphold the name of Christ, yet if their doctrine varies from the Biblical doctrine of Christ in my mind they are speaking evil of Him.
Any group or person who detracts from the character or message of the Lord might be spoken against without causing damage to this passage. If a group says He was the brother of the devil – that seems evil to me. If a group says that He was not a man – that seems evil to me. If a group says that He was not God -that seems evil to me.
The discussion at hand may have related to the apostle’s inability to cast out the demon just previously. John may have wondered at the qualifications of this man in comparison to the apostles inability to do the same thing. There may have been a lot of underlying things in the minds of the apostles relating to humility and service. Just where were they in relation to Christ if they could not cast out a demon.
Whether this was a disciple of John or whether a listener to the teachings of the Lord we do not know, but we do know that the Lord taught the apostles through the experience.
Matthew does not cover this and Luke only mentions it briefly ending with the comment “Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you.” This seems to be in keeping with our observations from Mark.
We now launch into a rather dark section of do’s and don’ts even though do’s and don’ts are anathema in our church culture today. Christ mentions several things, all of which will gain the person either good or bad depending on their action. Hummm, consequences for your actions what a novel concept and to think that the Lord had it first, not the hyper fundamentalist right ofour society.
So many today look down upon consequences as something that will hinder the full potential of the person. True, they do hinder them from reaching their full evil potential. Our society is lacking in every religious social grace there is. Ethics is an unknown in business, in life and often in church life.
Our school system has taught our newer generations that what you want is okay, just do it. No consequences, no repercussions, and no guilt if someday you find out you caused someone harm – it was their fault not yours is the attitude that they are taught.
Recently it has been revealed that many in the mortgage industry had been telling people to lie on their applications so they could get their home loans. Bad enough that the financial folks have no qualms about dishonesty, but the other side is that thousands of applicants also deemed it correct and proper to lie.
The moral fiber of America has been eaten away by the moths of immorality. And what is worst the church seldom raises a voice of concern. Where is the moral outrage? Where is the preaching of moral principles? When church boards purposely decide to deal with the lost community with the community’s standard of conduct rather than Christ’s how can it stand against immorality? It cannot because it dare not draw light upon itself.
Years ago I was in a church office in a large church waiting to speak to someone and I overheard the receptionist and a member of the staff arguing very loudly about whether the church should deal with businesses with Christian standards or with worldly standards. The staffer was quite pointed in telling the woman who the church would use the world’s standard and that it was church policy.
We will break this section up, but do not forget to understand it as a whole. Christ is laying some serious stuff on the apostles at this moment in time.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
9:38 {9} And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
(9) God, who normally works through ordinary means, works also extraordinarily as often as it pleases him. But an extraordinary means is tested by the doctrine and the effects.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The folly of a sectarian attitude 9:38-42 (cf. Matthew 18:6-7; Luke 9:49-50)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
This is the only place where the synoptic writers mentioned John speaking out alone. John spoke for the other disciples in the house (Mar 9:33).
Evidently the exorcist was a believer in Jesus though not one of the Twelve or possibly not even one who spent much time following Jesus around. He evidently commanded demons to leave the people they afflicted by using Jesus’ name. The Twelve apparently did not mind that this man claimed Jesus’ authority to exorcize demons. They objected to his actions because Jesus had not commissioned him to do so as He had the Twelve (Mar 3:14-15). Perhaps his success and the recent failure of the nine disciples irritated them further. In view of what Jesus had just said about receiving little children, John wondered if the Twelve had done right in rebuking the man. They had tried to protect Jesus’ honor by rebuking him (cf. Num 11:26-29).
"It is striking . . . that after each of the three major prophecies of the passion the evangelist inserts the response of one of the three disciple who were closest to Jesus: Peter (Ch. Mar 8:32 f.), John (Ch. Mar 9:38), and James, with John (Ch. Mar 10:35-37). Mark shows in this way that even the most privileged of the disciples failed to understand what the passion signified for their life and mission." [Note: Lane, p. 342.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER 9:38-50 (Mar 9:38-50)
OFFENSES
“John said unto Him, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy Name: and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able quickly to speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is for us. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on Me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell. And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another.” Mar 9:38-50 (R.V.)
WHEN Jesus spoke of the blessedness of receiving in His name even a little child, the conscience of St. John became uneasy. They had seen one casting out devils in that name, and had forbidden him, “because he followeth not us.” The spirit of partisanship which these words betray is somewhat softer in St. Luke, but it exists. He reports “because he followeth not (Jesus) with us.”
The behavior of the disciples all through this period is unsatisfactory. From the time when Peter contradicted and rebuked Jesus, down to their final desertion, there is weakness at every turn. And this is a curious example of it, that immediately after having failed themselves [That the event was recent is implied in the present tense: “he followeth not”: “forbid him not” the matter is still fresh.], they should rebuke another for doing what their Master had once declared could not possibly be an evil work. If Satan cast out Satan his house was divided against itself: if the finger of God was there no doubt the kingdom of God was come unto them.
It is interesting and natural that St. John should have introduced the question. Others were usually more forward, but that was because he was more thoughtful. Peter went first into the sepulcher; but he first, seeing what was there, believed. And it was he who said “It is the Lord,” although Peter thereupon plunged into the lake to reach Him. Discerning and grave: such is the character from which his Gospel would naturally come, and it belongs to him who first discerned the rebuke to their conduct implied in the words of Jesus. He was right. The Lord answered, “Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My name, and be able quickly to speak evil of Me:” his own action would seal his lips; he would have committed himself. Now this points out a very serious view of human life, too often overlooked. The deed of today rules tomorrow; one is half enslaved by the consequences of his own free will. Let no man, hesitating between two lines of action, ask, What harm in this? what use in that? without adding, And what future actions, good or evil, may they carry in their train?
The man whom they had rebuked was at least certain to be for a time detached from the opponents of truth, silent if not remonstrant when it was assailed, diluting and enfeebling the enmity of its opponents. And so Christ laid down the principle, “He that is not against us is for us.” In St. Luke the words are more plainly pointed against this party spirit, “He that is not against you is for you.”
How shall we reconcile this principle with Christ’s declaration elsewhere, “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth”?
It is possible to argue that there is no contradiction whatever, for both deny the existence of a neutral class, and from this it equally follows that he who is not with is against, and he who is not against is with us. But this answer only evades the difficulty, which is, that one passage reckons seeming neutrality as friendship, while the other denounces it as enmity.
A closer examination reveals a more profound reconciliation. In St. Matthew, Christ announced His own personal claim; in St. Mark He declares that His people must not share it. Towards Christ Himself, indifference is practical rejection. The manifestation of God was not made to be criticized or set aside: He loves them who love Him; He demands the hearts He died for; and to give Him less is to refuse Him the travail of His soul. Therefore He that is not with Christ is against Him. The man who boasts that he does no harm but makes no pretense of religion, is proclaiming that one may innocently refuse Christ. And it is very noteworthy that St. Matthew’s aphorism was evoked, like this, by a question about the casting out of devils. There the Pharisees had said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub. And Jesus had warned all who heard, that in such a controversy, to be indifferent was to deny him. Here, the man had himself appealed to the power of Jesus. He had passed. long ago, the stage of cool semi-contemptuous indifference. Whether he was a disciple of the Baptist, not yet entirely won, or a later convert who shrank from the loss of all things, what is plain is that he had come far on the way towards Jesus. It does not follow that he enjoyed a saving faith, for Christ will at last profess to many who cast out devils in His name, that He never knew them. But intellectual persuasion and some active reliance were there. Let them beware of crushing the germs, because they were not yet developed. Nor should the disciples suppose that loyalty to their organization, although Christ was with them, was the same as loyalty to Him. “He that is not against you is for you,” according to St. Luke. Nay more, “He that is not against us is for us,” according to St. Mark. But already He had spoken the stronger word, “He that is not for Me is against Me”
No verse has been more employed than this in sectarian controversy. And sometimes it has been pressed too far. The man whom St. John would have silenced was not spreading a rival organization; and we know how the same Apostle wrote, long afterwards, of those who did so: “If they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest how all they are not of us” (1Jn 2:19). This was simply a doer of good without ecclesiastical sanction, and the warning of the text is against all who would use the name of discipline or of order to bridle the zeal, to curb the energies, of any Christian soul. But it is at least as often the new movement as the old organization that would silence all who follow not with it.
But the energies of Christ and His gospel can never be monopolized by any organization whatsoever. Every good gift and every perfect gift, wherever we behold it, is from Him.
All help, then, is to be welcomed; not to hinder is to speed the cause. And therefore Jesus, repeating a former saying, adds that whosoever, moved by the name of Christ, shall give His followers one cup of water, shall be rewarded. He may be and continue outside the Church; his after life may be sadly inconsistent with this one action: that is not the question; the sole condition is the genuine motive–one impulse of true respect, one flicker of loyalty, only decided enough to speed the weary ambassador with the simplest possible refreshment, should “in no wise lose its reward.” Does this imply that the giver should assuredly enter heaven? Alas, no. But this it says, that every spark of fire in the smoking flax is tended, every gracious movement is answered by a gift of further grace, to employ or to abuse. Not more surely is the thirsty disciple refreshed, than the feverish worldliness of him who just attains to render this service is fanned and cooled by breezes from heaven, he becomes aware of a deeper and nobler life, he is melted and drawn towards better things. Very blessed, or very miserable is he who cannot remember the holy shame, the yearning, the sigh because he is not always thus, which followed naturally upon some deed, small in itself perhaps, but good enough to be inconsistent with his baser self. The deepening of spiritual capacity is one exceeding great reward of every act of loyalty to Christ.
This was graciously said of a deed done to the apostles, despite their failures, rivalries, and rebukes of those who would fain speed the common cause. Not, however, because they were apostles, but “because ye are Christ’s.” And so was the least, so was the child who clung to Him. But if the slightest sympathy with these is thus laden with blessing, then to hinder, to cause to stumble one such little one, how terrible was that. Better to die a violent and shameful death, and never sleep in a peaceful grave.
There is a worse peril than from others. We ourselves may cause ourselves to stumble. We may pervert beyond recall things innocent, natural, all but necessary, things near and dear and useful to our daily life as are our very limbs. The loss of them may be so lasting a deprivation that we shall enter heaven maimed. But if the moral evil is irrevocably identified with the worldly good, we must renounce it.
The hand with its subtle and marvelous power may well stand for harmless accomplishments now fraught with evil suggestiveness; for innocent modes of livelihood which to relinquish means crippled helplessness, yet which have become hopelessly entangled with unjust or at least questionable ways; for the great possessions, honestly come by, which the ruler would not sell; for all endowments which we can no longer hope to consecrate, and which make one resemble the old Chaldeans, whose might was their god, who sacrificed to their net and burned incense to their drag.
And the foot, with its swiftness in boyhood, its plodding walk along the pavement in maturer age, may well represent the caprices of youth so hard to curb, and also the half-mechanical habits which succeed to these, and by which manhood is ruled, often to its destruction. If the hand be capacity, resource, and possession, the foot is swift perilous impulse, and also fixed habitude, monotonous recurrence, the settled ways of the world.
Cut off hand and foot, and what is left to the mutilated trunk, the ravaged and desolated life? Desire is left; the desire of the eyes. The eyes may not touch the external world; all may now be correct in our actions and intercourse with men. But yet greed, passion, inflamed imagination may desecrate the temple of the soul. The eyes misled Eve when she saw that the fruit was good, and David on his palace roof. Before the eyes of Jesus, Satan spread his third and worst temptation. And our Lord seems to imply that this last sacrifice of the worst because the deepest evil must be made with indignant vehemence; hand and foot must be cut off, but the eye must be cast out, though life be half darkened in the process.
These latter days have invented a softer gospel, which proclaims that even the fallen err if they utterly renounce any good creature of God, which ought to be received with thanksgiving; that the duty of moderation and self-control can never be replaced by renunciation, and that distrust of any lawful enjoyment revives the Manichean heresy. Is the eye a good creature of God? May the foot be received with thanksgiving? Is the hand a source of lawful enjoyment? Yet Jesus made these the types of what must, if it has become an occasion of stumbling, be entirely cast away.
He added that in such cases the choice is between mutilation and the loss of all. It is no longer a question of the full improvement of every faculty, the doubling of all the talents, but a choice between living a life impoverished and half spoiled, and going complete to Gehenna, to the charnel valley where the refuse of Jerusalem was burned in a continual fire, and the worm of corruption never died. The expression is too metaphorical to decide such questions as that of the eternal duration of punishment, or of the nature of the suffering of the lost. The metaphors of Jesus, however, are not employed to exaggerate His meaning, but only to express it. And what He said is this: The man who cherishes one dear and excusable occasion of offense, who spares himself the keenest spiritual surgery, shall be cast forth with everything that defileth, shall be ejected with the offal of the New Jerusalem, shall suffer corruption like the transgressors of whom Isaiah first used the tremendous phrase, “their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,” shall endure at once internal and external misery, as of decomposition and of burning.
Such is the most terrible menace that ever crossed the lips into which grace was poured. And it was not addressed to the outcast or the Pharisee, but to His own. They were called to the highest life; on them the influences of the world was to be as constant and as disintegrating as that of the weather upon a mountain top. Therefore they needed solemn warning, and the counter-pressure of those awful issues known to be dependent on their stern self-discipline. They could not, He said in an obscure passage which has been greatly tampered with, they could not escape fiery suffering in some form. But the fire which tried would preserve and bless them if they endured it; every one shall be salted with fire. But if they who ought to be the salt of the world received the grace of God in vain, if the salt have lost its saltness, the case is desperate indeed.
And since the need of this solemn warning sprang from their rivalry and partisanship, Jesus concludes with an emphatic charge to discipline and correct themselves and to beware of impeding others: to be searching in the closet, and charitable in the church: to have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.