Mark 9:38

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.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Baptist’s disciples, who believed in Jesus, though he did not yet associate with our Lord’s 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 men’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Jairus’s 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 John’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

9:38-41 An unknown exorcist was casting out demons in Jesus’ name though he was not one of the twelve disciples (9:38-40). John objected, but Jesus corrected him. • we told him to stop: Cp. 10:35-43; Luke 9:51-55. • The success of the unknown exorcist is contrasted with the failure of the disciples in the previous account (Mark 9:14-29).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 9:38. Ἀπεκρίθη, 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 Lord’s 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.—ἡμῖν—ἡμῖν, us) The apostles, in subordination to Thee.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar_9:38-40. Comp. Luk_9:49-50 (not in Matthew). The connection of thought lies in ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. μου … τῷ ὀνόμ. σου; the disciples had done the opposite of the δέχεσθαι 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 ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. μου, 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.

τῷ ὀνόμ. σου.] 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.

ὃς οὐκ ἀκολ. ἡμῖν, and then again ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολ. ἡμῖν] 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).

ἐκωλύομεν (see the critical remarks): the imperfect, following the aorist, makes us dwell on the main point of the narrative. See Kühner, 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 δυνήσεται designates the ethical possibility.

ταχύ] 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 τάχα, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἐπὶ τ . ὀνόματί μου in Mar 9:37 , answering to ἐν τ . ὀ . σ . in Mar 9:38 . ἐκβάλλοντα δ .: 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. ἐκωλύομεν , imperfect, taken by most as implying repeated interdicts, but it may be the conative imperfect = we tried to prevent him. οὐκ ἠκολούθει , he did not follow us; the reason for the prohibition. The aloofness of the exorcist is represented as still continuing in the words ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ (T. R.).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

God who is the author of an ordinary vocation, worketh also extraordinarily so oft as it pleaseth him. But an extraordinary vocation is tried by the doctrine and the effects.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 Lord’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 Christ’s 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 Sceva’s 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 John’s 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 Christ’s sake, as Joshua did for Moses’s sake, Num 11:28, as John’s disciples did for their master’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This verse, according to the best authorities, should begin simply, John said unto him although in St. Luke (Luk_9:49) they stand, "And John answered and saidMaster, we saw one casting out devils in thy name: and we forbade him, because he followed not us. The casting out of evil spirits was one of the foremost signs of apostleship; and what surprised St. John was that one who followed not Christ should have been able to work this miracle a miracle in which, it will be remembered, the disciples had recently failed. It thus appears that our Lord"s teaching had been so influential, that some, not reckoned amongst his disciples, had shown this proof of a strong and overpowering faith. We know that there were those in our Savior"s time, of Jewish race, who cast out devils. (Mat_12:27) And Justin Martyr, in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," states that while exorcism, as practiced by the Jews, often failed when it was attempted to be exercised "by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," was eminently successful when administered "by the name of the Son of God, who was born of a virgin and crucified under Pontius Pilate" (c. 85). That spirit has power over spirit in many mysterious ways is one of those truths which science has not yet been able to explain (see Dr. Morison on St. Mark, in loc.). To return, however, to the instance here alluded to by St. John, it should be observed that they who acted thus had faith in Christ; and that by thus acting with him and for him, though not amongst his recognized followers, they contributed towards his honor who, by means of these imperfect instruments, carried out the great purpose of his manifestation, namely," to destroy the works of the devil." Then further, the disciples forbade them not out of envy or hatred, but out of zeal for Christ, as though they were thus serving his cause and upholding his honor. But this was" a zeal, not according to knowledge." They had forbidden them, without having first taken counsel of their Master.

Vers. 38-41. The judgment of charity.

It is clear, from this passage, that the influence of our Lord Jesus was wider than was known by his own immediate friends, and that his work was, even during his lifetime, advancing in directions of which they were not aware. Accidentally, as it were, we gain an insight into the progress of the kingdom of Christ outside the immediate circle of his acknowledged and professed disciples; and the incident which affords us this insight, at the same time presents to us truths and lessons of vast practical importance.

I BIGOTRY IS HUMAN, AND CHARITY IS DIVINE. If any one of the twelve might have been deemed free from all suspicion of bigotry, surely it would have been John, often called" The Apostle of Love." Yet from this incident, and from his wishing upon another occasion to call down fire from heaven upon unbelievers, it is plain that, at all events during the Lord"s ministry, he was wont to give way to an ardent, impetuous, violent spirit. In the view of a bigot, one who does not work in his own way is censured and condemned as unfit to work for God at all. The Lord Jesus proved his superiority to human infirmity by permitting and encouraging service which his followers would have forbidden.

II OUTWARD UNITY AND CONFORMITY ARE NO SUFFICIENT TEST OF CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP. Men are naturally prone to lay great stress upon this. The complaint, "He followeth not with us," has not been confined to the first followers of Jesus. The "following," in such cases, means outward association and agreement in language, usages, forms of policy and of worship. But two considerations should check that narrowness which would limit discipleship to those who conform to established custom:

1. Some conform, who prove themselves to be lacking in the mind and spirit of Jesus Christ.

2. Some refuse, or neglect to conform, who display such spirit, and whoso actions show them to be Christ"s.

III ONE TEST OF DISCIPLESHIP IS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH MEN WORK FOR CHRIST. The stranger, to whom reference is made, is said to have done what he did it, Christ"s Name, and the Lord declares that the presumption is markedly in the favor of one whose practice may be so denoted. What are we to understand by the expression, "in Christ"s Name"? It is an idiom which involves more than lies upon the surface. The Name of Christ implies his nature, his character, his claims, his mission. What is done truly in his Name, is done from reverence towards him, from faith in him, from love to him, in reliance upon his grace, and with a view to his honor and his approval. Now, our Lord teaches us that they whose life is animated and governed, controlled and guided, by a constant reference to himself, are to be honored and encouraged. Such may have an imperfect acquaintance with the Lord Jesus, an insufficient apprehension of his nature or his work, an indisposition to consort with his professed followers. In all this it is possible they may be inferior to ourselves, though it is not certain. But this must not rouse us to bigotry, to conceit, and opinionated self-complacency. Let us recognize and admire the spirit which such "outsiders" may display, and wish them God-speed, and rejoice in their witness and in their work!

IV ANOTHER TEST OF DISCIPLESHIP IS THE WORK WHICH MEN DO FOR CHRIST, This passage reminds us that:

1. It may be a mighty work or a power. This is not necessarily miraculous; it may be moral. The mark of God"s finger may be upon the work. In our own state of society this "note" of true Christianity may sometimes be recognized among those who are unassociated with our Churches, and even among the "unorthodox.

2. It may be the casting out of demons. In the Gospel narrative this was literally the case. And in modern life there are many demons of ignorance, impurity, sloth, and selfishness, which need expulsion. And those who devote their time and energies to combating these ills, are doing the work of our Master, and will not be able quickly to speak evil of him. Let us rejoice, not only in their work, but in themselves.

3. It may be the giving era cup of cold water to Christ"s people in Christ"s Name. Not the magnitude, but the moral tendency, the inner motive of the act, is of importance in the sight of our Lord. If the act itself be kind and beneficent, that is sufficient to recommend it to us, and to make it acceptable to the Lord. There is an obvious harmony between a good work and the good spirit in which the work is performed.

V A CANON OF JUDGMENT. It may be determined that the rule of ver. 40, "He that is not against us is for us," refers to our judgment of others and of their actions. It is a wise as well as a charitable principle. It is a preservative against bigotry, and it is fitted to ensure equitable and considerate treatment of our neighbors. The rule elsewhere recorded," He that is not for us is against us," applies to ourselves, and warns us against lukewarmness in our piety and negligence in our service. Let us be stricter with ourselves, and more charitable with others, and we shall the better please our righteous and gracious Lord.

Vers. 38-42. The comprehensiveness of Christ"s service.

The connection with what preceded is to be sought in John"s keen sense of having transgressed the spirit of the beautiful words just uttered. Christ Would acknowledge all who professed his name; John had to confess that he had forbidden such a one from working. This leads to Christ"s indicating

I MARKS OF HIS TRUE SERVANTS. The general link between the several classes is his "Name," i.e. conscious oneness and sympathy with him as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Accepting that as the test, he lays down:

1. A general principle of comprehension. (Ver. 40) It is negative. If a man does not oppose him, he is to be considered as an ally and a friend. There is no neutrality in man"s relations to Christ. This was especially the case in that age: the devil was too active in human nature to suffer any opposition to be undeveloped. The powers of darkness and of light were in deadly antagonism, and all who were aware of the conflict were certain to have their sympathies engaged for the one side or the other. This seems a dangerous principle, and apt to lead to entanglement or disaster. "Divinely dangerous." Yet is it the teaching of the Spirit of God, and beautifully harmonious with it.

2. That those are his servants who do mighty works in his Name. This mere statement suggests how profoundly the work of Christ was leavening the community. There were many besides his professed followers who were influenced by his spirit.

(1) That they should be able to do these works (which were of a miraculous nature) showed that they must already be in communion with his spirit. To cast forth devils could not be to further the cause of their prince, or to be aided by him. And so of the complementary work of awaking spiritual life in conversion, etc. Such work is manifestly of God, and these results prove his presence and approval.

(2) The honor and cause of Christ will be dear to such, even as to those more openly and professedly connected with him. Christ"s servants do not work magically, by the mechanical force of dark formulas, but by sympathy and moral oneness with him.

3. That sympathy and help towards a disciple, as such, is itself a proof of discipleship.

(1) The slightest sign of this spirit is to be welcomed in faith and hope, as a firstfruits of greater things to come.

(2) But in itself it is already truly a great service, and as such will be certainly rewarded. It seems almost more precious, in its connection, than the "mighty works;" for these may sometimes incommode, and be mingled with much error and evil, but the merciful kindness is ever serviceable, and flows from no other fountain than the heart of God.

II THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THESE ARE TO BE REGARDED. The child of grace is to be trustfully disposed, and ready to put a charitable construction upon the merely negative behavior of men. And, moreover, it is to be recollected that the principle is not one of judgment, but of policy. "Jesus would impress it upon his disciples that they must honor and protect the isolated beginnings or germs of faith to be found in the world" (Lange). Towards all who do not oppose Christ there is to be an attitude of hopeful and trustful encouragement. (cf. Mat_11:4)

1. Christian acknowledgment. "Forbid them not." Involving

a. brotherly recognition not mere toleration:

b. fostering and protecting care;

c. devout thankfulness and humility.

2. Remembering their retaliation to the same Master.

a. He acknowledges them;

b. he will afterwards reward them;

c. we shall be sternly and awfully judged if we "cause them to stumble.

"The word for mill s tone indicates the larger stone-mill, in working which an ass was generally employed, as distinguished from the smaller hand-mill of Luk_17:35. The punishment was not recognized in the Jewish Law, but it was in occasional use among the Greeks (Diod. Sic., 16:35), and had been inflicted by Augustus (Sueton., "Aug.," 67.) in cases of special infamy. Jerome states (in a note on this passage) that it was practiced in Galilee, and it is not improbable that the Romans had inflicted it upon some of the ringleaders of the insurrection headed by Judas of Galilee. The infamy of offending one of the " little ones" was as great as that of those whose crimes brought upon them this exceptional punishment. It was obviously a form of death less cruel in itself than many others, and its chief horror, both for Jews and heathen, was probably that it deprived the dead of all rites of burial" (Plumptre, in "New Test. Com."). This punishment, such as it was, was but a shadow of the more terrible penalties of the spiritual state. M.

Vers. 38-50. Stumbling-blocks.

The same spirit which had led to the disputing as to "who was the greatest," had prompted the forbidding of one who, in Jesus" Name, was "casting out devils." The only reason assigned for the authoritative prohibition was, "He followed not us." If to pride envy succeeds, and if hatred lurks near to envy, malice is not afar off. The simple correction, "Forbid him not," is supported by the assurance that such a one cannot quickly become an enemy evil of me;" and "he that is not against us is for us." This admonition is urged by a teaching which branches out in three directions, relating to

I THE FAITHFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND REWARD OF THE LEAST SERVICE RENDERED TO THE DISCIPLES IN THE NAME OF CHRIST even "a cup of water to drink." Very wide apart are the two works, the "Wasting out devils" and the giving "a cup of water to drink." The one act may be performed by a mere child in age or in grace; but the other is the work of the man in grace and years. That the disciples were in the wrong in forbidding him who did the greater work, is shown by the assurance that he who does the less is acknowledged and rewarded by the Lord of all. Did not the disciples know that the casting out of devils was service done to them? Were they as ignorant as so many to-day are, not knowing that in the conquest of evil every one"s best interests are advanced? Intimately is the well-being of one bound up in the well-being of all. The human body is not more closely knit and compacted together than is human society. To do good to any part is to do good to the whole. And each part suffers in the suffering, or loss, or injury of any other. Then by whomsoever or howsoever devils are cast out, let every true lover of his race and every wise lover of himself rejoice. Such a worker is not "against us," but "for us.

II THE EQUALLY FAITHFUL PUNISHMENT OF ANY WHO SHALL CAUSE ONE OF THE LOWLIEST one "of the least of these little ones that believe on me To STUMBLE. But a rude interference with any worker of good is an offense against that good Lord, from whom alone men have power to do good. Here not only were devils cast out, but they were cast out in the Name of Christ. Plainly this was a servant of Christ, and a disciple, acknowledged as "one of these little ones that believe on me," to whom the Lord had given "power and authority." And that power was being used obediently. How serious a stumbling-block was thrown in the way of his obedience by the authoritative prohibition of the (possibly jealous) disciples! But how great the penalty worse than to have "a great millstone hanged about his neck," and to be "drowned in the depth of the sea"! So jealously does the Lord of all guard the interests even of "little ones." It were better for a man to lose his own life in time than to lead another astray, so that he should lose the life eternal; better for them both. But what was the greater evil to which the layer of stumbling-blocks Was exposed? Was it not the certainty that the Lord would do with his own body What he taught the disciples to do with theirs? off" the "hand" or "foot," "cast out" the "eye" that caused the body to stumble, whomsoever that foot or eye or hand might be? Was the foot cut off when Judas was severed from the body, and cut off to save the body, so that through all ages, of the twelve chosen, one must be wanting? Sad was the possibility, severe the warning; but how merciful and gracious! Men act on the principle, and sever a limb to save a life. So in spirituals should it be.

III THE WISDOM OF EVERY DISCIPLE UTTERLY RENOUNCING WHATEVER MIGHT CAUSE HIM TO STUMBLE, OR BE A STUMBLING-BLOCK TO OTHERS. For every disciple the principle holds good. It is wise to forego anything that threatens the true life rather than lose that life. To retain all and be "east into hell not into the mere hiding, or hidden place, but into "the unquenchable fire," the fire into which the spirit will be cast; worse than that, into which the body may be thrown, the real Gehenna, not the symbolical one is to lose all. "To enter into the kingdom of God," having suffered the loss of that which was dear as an eye, a hand, or a foot, "is good" indeed in comparison with being "cast into" that "hell." There is a final fire, a fire that "is not quenched," which is punishment. And there is a present temporary fire, a salting fire, which is corrective and disciplinary. To this the cutting off the hand corresponds. It is a pain-giving, fiery ordeal, with which every one in God"s good way is "salted." And there is a salt of self-denial, which leads men to be "at peace one with another." It is held in the thought, which the "many ancient authorities" teach, that if any one would be a true sacrifice to God he must faithfully apply the fiery salt to the green, cankerous wound and burn out the evil, lest the evil burn out and burn up the life. G.

Vers. 38-50. Marked sins.

There are some sins which are singled out for peculiar denunciation by the Spirit and Word of Christ. They are extremely opposed to the ends and purport of the kingdom.

I INTOLERANCE. That is, the hindering of good, because the good is not done in our way. Christianity says the good deed justifies itself. Coming from a good source, it is not likely to be associated with evil opinions or teaching. Any one who does good nowadays may be said virtually to do it in the Name of Christ. To do good one need not, cannot, pass out of the Christian atmosphere. And experience of history confirms the statement of Christ. Good men really love him, whatever difference there may be in their mode of conception of him and statements about him. All that is done for love"s sake is virtually and really done in his Name.

II CAUSING SIN IN OTHERS. Involuntarily people may take offense, "stumble" at what we do or say. We cannot help false inferences being drawn, nor turn bad reasoners or conduct into good, nor weak brethren into strong. But we can avoid doing what we know will hurt others. If we are reckless in this respect, the will and the intelligence are involved in guilt.

III DELIBERATE PREFERENCE OF PLEASURE TO RIGHT. The old story of the man who defended his dishonesty by the plea, "One must live," has its meaning for us. The judge replied to the culprit, "I do not see the necessity." So with the Christian: luxury is not a necessity; pleasure is not a necessity; even life in the lower sense is not a necessity; but only life in the higher sense a good conscience, a soul in purity and integrity. It is ever a good bargain to part with a sin, and a losing business to compromise with a lust.

IV SIN CAN ONLY BE CURED BY SUFFERING. Sin is in the intelligence want of principle; in the will want of energy for, true self-realization. Our mistakes and troubles throw us upon the true principles of conduct, on the moral law of God. The fallacy of expecting blessedness by false methods leads us back to the true. Stern but kind is the discipline by which God uproots our follies and trains us for himself. J.

Vers. 38-41. Parallel passage: Luk_9:49, Luk_9:50. Rebuke of sectarian narrowness.

I THE KEY-NOTE OF THE PASSAGE. The sentence which appears to furnish the key to the understanding of this instructive and interesting passage is contained in the following short sentence: He that is not against us is on our part," or, as it stands yet more concisely in St. Luke, "He that is not against us is for us.

II A seeming contradiction. The statement just quoted from the Gospel of St. Luke (Luk_9:50) appears to be at variance with another statement further on in the same Gospel, where, at the eleventh chapter and twenty-third verse, it is written, "He that is not with me is against me." The discrepancy, however, is only apparent. In order to perceive this, we must consider the occasions on which the words recorded were respectively spoken; for, as our Lord and his apostles usually adapted their language to the occasion, we shall thus best learn the design with which each of those sentiments was uttered. Accordingly, we learn that some one not consorting with Christ or his apostles was, nevertheless, casting out devils in the Savior"s name, and that John forbade him. Our Lord sets John right in the matter by saying, "Forbid him not;" that is, do not interfere with any who may be attempting anything good in my name. And then he assigns the reason; for "he that is not against us is for us;" he who is not directly opposed to us is rather to be regarded as on our side; he who is not preventing our progress may be looked upon, at least negatively, as promoting it. Just as is intimated by the Apostle Paul on a certain occasion, even though envy and strife should be the impelling motive, if Christ is preached his cause is advanced, and "I therein do rejoice." So here we may fairly understand the words of the Master to mean Whosoever this man may be, or whatever may be his object, he is weakening Satan"s kingdom by casting out devils, and therefore, so far from being against me, he must be looked upon as an auxiliary in the great war against the great enemy of man. Besides, by such forbearance as I thus counsel, he may be drawn into closer and more effective co-operation against the common adversary. Such is the plain meaning of the passage before us. On the other hand, in the second passage, our Lord had been charged by the hostile, cavilling Pharisees with casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. This charge had called forth the rejoinder of our Lord, that "every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation." Such would be the case if Satan cast out Satan. The only reasonable alternative was that the Savior was casting out devils by the Spirit of God, and so the kingdom of God had come unto them. He follows up this reply by a warning against lukewarmness and an exhortation to decision, that the crisis had come when men must choose sides, that they must elect to take part with God or with Satan. Neutrality was impossible. In view of two kingdoms so opposed, there was no possibility of belonging to both; nay, there was no middle ground between loyalty and rebellion. If not on the side of the Savior, he must be on the side of Satan; if not a subject of the former, he must be a slave of the latter, and so an enemy to the cause of Christ: "He that is not with me is against me.

III THE SAME SUBJECT VIEWED FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. The one text implies that men may take different roads to the same place, or reach the same point by different routes. This is true morally as well as geographically. It condemns the narrowness that refuses to tolerate want of uniformity, and commends forbearance towards all who in reality serve the same Master and seek the same object, viz. the glory of God, though their forms may be diverse, their modes of worship different, and even their creeds divergent in expression. The other text affirms that, in the natural and increasing conflict between good and evil, our hesitation to unite with the good is tantamount with adhesion to the evil. The one text does not insist on uniformity, the other inculcates unity. Again, conformity to the same standards is not an indispensable condition of Christianity, as we infer from the one text; but cordiality in embracing Christ and espousing his cause is of its very essence. We are taught by the one that there may be many folds, though there is but one flock; but by the other that, as there is but one Shepherd, union to him is indispensable to membership in his flock. Further, the one makes charity to others imperative, provided they have the same great end in view, however divergent the means adopted for its attainment; the other requires of us decision for ourselves in seeking that end. J.J.G.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Baptist's disciples, who believed in Jesus, though he did not yet associate with our Lord's disciples. And we forbad 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 does that spirit become a disciple, much more a minister of the benevolent Jesus! St. Paul had learnt 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. Luke ix, 49.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38. John answered him, we saw one. The disciples had shortly before returned to Christ from their first missionary tour, in which they were empowered to cast out devils (Matt. 10:8). The man here referred to they probably met during this tour. He must have been a disciple of Christ, who was enabled by his faith, yet without a commission, to cure the possessed—Abbott. Casting out devils in thy name. Really, and not in a wrong spirit, as did the Jewish exorcists (Acts 19:13, 14); for it was done in thy name. Such workers as this man believed in him, or they would not have used his name. He followeth not us. Did not join himself to the apostles as one of their followers.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

John said to him

"John said to Jesus"

driving out demons

"sending away demons." This refers to casting demons out of people. AT: "driving demons out of people" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

in your name

Here "name" is associated with Jesus' authority and power. AT: "by the authority of your name" or "by the power of your name" (See: Metonymy)

he does not follow us

This means that he is not among their group of disciples. AT: "he is not one of us" or "he does not walk with us" (See: Idiom)

translationWords

John (the apostle)

Jesus

teacher

cast out

demon

might

works

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

38–40. MISTAKEN ZEAL FOR THE NAME

Luk 9:49-50

38. Before αὐτῷ, [2013][2014][2015][2016] read simply ἔφη. [2017][2018][2019][2020][2021][2022] omit ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν. ἐκωλύομεν ([2023][2024][2025][2026][2027]) rather than ἐκωλύσαμεν ([2028][2029][2030][2031]), and ἠκολούθει ([2032][2033][2034][2035][2036]) rather than ἀκολουθεῖ.

[2013] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2014] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2015] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2016] Codex Athous Laurae. 8th cent. Like N and Σ, it is written in silver letters on purple vellum. Contains Mar 9:5 to Mar 16:20, and, as in L, the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9. As in Δ, the text of Mark is specially good.

[2017] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2018] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2019] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2020] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2021] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2022] Codex Athous Laurae. 8th cent. Like N and Σ, it is written in silver letters on purple vellum. Contains Mar 9:5 to Mar 16:20, and, as in L, the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9. As in Δ, the text of Mark is specially good.

[2023] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2024] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2025] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[2026] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2027] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2028] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[2029] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2030] Codex Oxoniensis. 9th cent. Contains Mark, except Mar 3:35 to Mar 6:20.

[2031] Codex Petropolitanus. 9th cent. Gospels almost complete. Mar 16:18-20 is in a later hand.

[2032] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2033] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2034] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2035] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2036] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

38. Ἔφη αὐτῷ. See crit. note. This kind of asyndeton is rare in Mk (Mar 10:28, Mar 12:24), as in Lk. and Jn, but is freq. in Mt. Nowhere else in the Synoptists is John mentioned as intervening singly. He speaks again with others Mar 10:35 and Mar 13:3.

Διδάσκαλε. Lk. has his favourite Ἐπιστάτα (cf. Mar 9:5). It is possible that the words ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου remind him of the incident which he mentions. He may mean, “Were we not right in refusing to receive as an ally one who did not receive Thee as Master?” Justin (Try. 30) says that in his time the Name of Jesus was used with success in exorcisms.

ἐκωλύομεν. Conative imperf., as in Mat 3:14; cf. Mat 15:23; Luk 1:59; Luk 5:6. Or “repeatedly forbade” may be the meaning.

ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν. Because he was not following us. The exorcist did not profess to be a disciple; and the disciples were indignant, not because he had been rivalling their powers, but because, without authority, he had been using Christ’s Name. Unlike the juggling exorcists in Act 19:13-16, the man was evidently (in however defective a way) sincere and successful. To suppose that this exorcist is meant to represent St Paul is a curiosity in criticism. A representative of St Paul would preach rather than exorcize.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38.] Only found besides in Luke, vv. 49, 50.

Notice the repetition of οὐκ ἀκολ. ἡμ. 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 canonicæ.” 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38-50. The disciples tell Jesus of their interference with one casting out demons in his name, but not following them. Jesus’ reply.

The belief of the disciples in the near approach of the kingdom seems to have wrought in them other effects than ambition. So far, the power to work miracles had been confined to themselves. And it seemed to them a mark of superiority to which they had the exclusive right. So we find John, apparently in the course of this same conversation, telling Jesus of the case of an outsider who had used his name in casting out demons, and had been forbidden by them any further exercise of a power appropriated to them. Jesus’ answer is substantially that they are right, that the work of a disciple does belong to a disciple; but that they have turned this the wrong way. It does not lead to officialism, but just the opposite. It follows, not that any one who is outside their circle should be forbidden their work, but that the doing of the work shows that he is like them inwardly, though not outwardly. Their complaint is, that he is doing their work. Very well, Jesus says, that shows that he is on your side. It is not necessary to do a miracle to show this; a cup of water given to them because they are disciples shows the same thing. But if any one causes the fall of one of the humblest of these disciples, it would be better for him to be cast into the sea, with a millstone round his neck. And since to fall away is so grievous an evil, they would better cut off hand, or foot, or eye, than have any member cause their fall, since this means Gehenna and its fires to them. Fire is to salt them all, either the fire of affliction here, or the fire of Gehenna there. Fire is salt, and salt is good; but if any salt loses its flavor, how is salt to be salted? Hence they must have salt in themselves to render these outward purifiers effective, and especially must be at peace among themselves, an injunction which their jealousies and rivalries rendered necessary.

38. Ἔφη αὐτῶ ὁ Ἰωάννης, Διδάσκαλε, εἴδομέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια, καὶ ἐκωλεύομεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν—John said to him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.

Ἔφη, instead of ἀπεκρίθη δέ … λέγων. And … answered, saying, Tisch. Treg. (who, however, retains λέγων) WH. RV. א B L Memph. Pesh. Insert ἐν before τ. ὀνόματι Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDLN Δ 1, 69, etc. Omit ὅς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν, who does not follow us, WH. RV. א BCL Δ 10, 115, 346, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh. ἐκωλύομεν, instead of λύσαμεν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDgr. L Δ 1, 209. ἠκολούθει, instead of ἀκολουθεῖ, after ὅτι οὐκ, Tisch. WH. RV. א B Δ.

Διδάσκαλε—Teacher, not Master. The word in the vernacular used by him would be Rabbi. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου—in thy name. See on v. 37. In this case, it means, by the authority of Jesus. ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει—because he was not following. The impf. takes us back to the time of the transaction, when the disciples saw him casting out demons. They were right in assuming this to be an abnormal case, because the proper place for the disciple assuming such powers was with Jesus. The Master kept such in his immediate company for instruction, and even his immediate disciples he sent out on such errands only very rarely. But all such restrictions are themselves limited by the method of the Spirit’s working, which is like the wind, blowing where it will. The disciples had a right to expect that one who had come under the influence of Jesus would, like them, desire to be with him. But they did not take into account the fact that one might, under the influence of such a life, be awakened himself to the want and wretchedness of the world, and wish to put the mysterious power that he felt within him to the test, and that this might overpower even the desire for the companionship of the Lord.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.