# Mark 9:40



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 
Mar 9:39 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. 
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part. 

What is your interpretation and how should we apply this principle in light of our day?


----------



## andreas (Dec 26, 2004)

***"What is your interpretation and how should we apply this principle in light of our day?***


And there ran a young man (Joshua), and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. (28) And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. (29) And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" Numbers 11:27-29

"Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: (16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: (17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. (18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." Philippians1:15-18

andreas.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 27, 2004)

Andreas,
I don't know if your examples are contrastable. The apostles are clearly saying that this person, "he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us".

What do you think they meant by 'not following' them. Were they saying that he did not physically follow them or was his theology different?

[Edited on 12-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2004)

Scott,

I think they meant that those men were not a part of the disciples. This might be similar to the case of their criticisms of John's disciples for baptizing. I think Calvin hits the bulls-eye here:



> 40. For he who is not against us is for us. He does not enjoin us to give a loose rein to rash men, and to be silent while they intermeddle with this and the other matter, according to their own fancy, and disturb the whole order of the Church: for such licentiousness, so far as our calling allows, must be restrained. He only affirms that they act improperly, who unseasonably prevent the kingdom of God from being advanced by any means whatever. And yet he does not acknowledge as his disciples, or reckon as belonging to his flock, those who hold an intermediate place between enemies and friends, but means that,. so far as they do no harm, they are useful and profitable: for it is a proverbial saying, which reminds us that we ought not to raise a quarrel till we are constrained.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 27, 2004)

Fred,
Do you consider their critique of these men in regards to orthodoxy?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Do you consider their critique of these men in regards to orthodoxy?



No, but rather one of authority, since the issue was not _teaching_, but rather performing miracles. I think is more a proof text for a gracious ecclesiology than a gracious theology.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 27, 2004)

The way I would interpret this verse would be that Jesus is not granting explicit approval of all messages that purport to be "in His name," but rather, knowing what opposition the world had and has to His kingdom, recognizes that men are divided into two camps: those that are FOR Him and those that are AGAINST Him. If a man, or these men, were not actively opposing His message, but instead thought themselves to be on His side, then whatever bit of good they might do will surely be better than having ANOTHER enemy!

As far as this should teach on ecclesiology, perhaps we have a lesson to learn here in that, since our struggle against the world is SO great, are we not fully seeing it since so much of our aim seems to be against those that might possibly also be inside the Church? 

Or,
Do we oftentimes not recognize the vastness and seriousness of the war we are in? I mean by that, if we were engaged actively enough towards our enemies (and Enemy), we would not find as threatening those that were not directly engaging against us. We have a large enough battle to fight, why invest an excess of energy towards straining out the gnat? Could that same energy not be better used in winning larger battles?

(Now obviously I recognize that false doctrine and false teachers must be fought against, but as whoever said, "You can't say everything all at once!")


----------



## andreas (Dec 27, 2004)

***What do you think they meant by 'not following' them. Were they saying that he did not physically follow them or was his theology different?***


The man was fighting the same war, but in a different unit.We are not told who he was,perhaps a disciple of John the Baptist.We are so proud, that we tend to think, unless something is done by us,or those we identify with, is bound to be bad.The truth is that if the same gospel is taught by someone, who for some reason does not identify with us,it does not mean that we should not be lenient towards that person.

andreas.


----------

