By Warren E. Berkley
![]()
"And John answered and said, 'Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name,
and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.' And Jesus said to him, 'Do not
forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us'." (Luke 9:49,50, NKJ)
In this passage from Luke chapter nine and the corresponding account in Mark nine,
inspiration documents the Lord's reply to a statement made by John. This is one of those
passages that seems to be plain and clear enough, even simple. Yet, it has been twisted,
stretched and perverted far beyond its contextual intent. It is even advanced as a reason
for gospel preachers to refrain from exposing false teachers and telling people they are
in religious error or immorality.
Here's the kind of argument you might hear: "This man was not following Christ with
Peter, James and John and the other apostles. He was working independent of 'Christ's
group,' yet the Lord said: 'Do not forbid him.' Hence, even though someone may not be with
us (in the Lord's church); even if they happen to be in a denominational body, or teaching
some things that are wrong; so long as they are not against us, and so long as they
ascribe the name of Christ to their work, we should not forbid or criticize them. This is
the "practical lesson" some have derived from this text.
I think we should begin this study by recognizing the tone of this argument and the
motivation behind it. There are some in the churches of Christ who have grown weary of
what they would regard as "intolerant militance." They do not want gospel
preachers to expose false teaching or speak against various expressions of sin. They
desire to broaden the base of fellowship to embrace anyone and everyone who claims
allegiance to the name of Christ. Those with this perspective, when they hear strong,
plain preaching against religious error and "will not endure" it, may try to
misuse Luke 9:49,50 to restrain the contender for the faith. But, the case of the
unidentified exorcist needs to be studied with these points of observation in mind:
So, whatever this passage means, we can be certain it doesn't mean that gospel preachers are to refrain from exposing false teachers and false religions. The text affords no ground for that whatever. Gospel preachers are to charge false teachers ''that they teach no other doctrine," (1 Tim. 1:3). Their duty is to "rebuke" and "exhort," (2 Tim. 4:2). Every gospel preacher and every Christian must imitate the attitude of Paul who has ''set for the defense of the gospel,'' (Phil. 1:17). In regard to those religions, individuals or theological systems not divinely authorized, Jesus said: "Every plant, which my heavenly Father bath not planted, shall be rooted up," (Matt. 15:7-14). Hence, Jesus never endorsed the rationale of silence or tolerance of anything morally or religiously wrong.
The context is always important. What had been going on before John made this statement? Did he just make this remark "out of the blue?" No. I believe John's statement is connected to what had been going on. John and the others had been fussing among themselves about who was the greatest (see: Luke 9:46-48 and Mark 9:33-37). In these early days with Christ, these men were immature spiritually; so, they said and did things that called for correction. I believe John was simply asserting their loyalty, the only way they knew how. They had done something they thought would merit the Lord's praise, and, perhaps, some great position in His kingdom. Too, they felt that keeping personal company with the Lord made them "better" than others and qualified to "forbid" those who weren't so privileged.
The passage reflects the early immaturity of the apostles. And it teaches that those who are living and working in the name of Christ (by His authority) are not to be forbidden, even if they are unknown to us.
Contact the writer: [email protected]
![]()
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page