Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Introduction to the Dialogue on Humility

The teachings of Jesus often took the form of dialogues rather than uninterrupted speeches. In these dialogues, Jesus engaged with His disciples, who played an active role by asking questions, expressing concerns, or presenting scenarios that brought out deeper lessons. In the discussion on humility, two disciples, Peter and John, took on prominent roles. Peter raised a question about forgiveness, while John brought up a situation that illustrated the challenge of understanding and applying Jesus’ teachings about receiving others in His name. The scenario John recalled highlights a critical lesson that Jesus used to further instruct His disciples.

The Incident of the Interdicted Exorcist

John recounted a situation where he and his fellow disciples encountered a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name. However, this man was not part of their group, and for this reason, the disciples, acting together, forbade him from continuing his work. The account does not specify when this incident occurred, but it likely took place during the Galilean mission when the disciples were actively engaged in preaching, healing, and casting out demons.

John’s account does not shy away from admitting that he and the other disciples acted together in this matter. This collective action might surprise those who view John as the “apostle of love,” but it reflects an earlier stage of spiritual development. At this point, John’s zeal was marked by a certain narrowness and intolerance, which would later mature into a more gracious and inclusive love. At this time, however, John’s fervor for the cause of Christ led him to act with a severity that he would later outgrow.

Narrow-Mindedness and Misjudgment

In refusing to acknowledge the exorcist as a fellow laborer in Christ’s mission, the disciples judged based on superficial criteria. They did not investigate the man’s character or motivations; it was enough for them that he was not part of their immediate circle. This attitude is strikingly similar to the idea that everyone within the “approved” group must be good, while anyone outside it is suspect—an idea that history has repeatedly shown to be flawed.

The man they silenced was doing good work, and he clearly had a reverence for Jesus, as he was casting out demons in His name. Although it is possible that someone might misuse the name of Jesus for personal gain, the disciples should have considered the evidence of the man’s actions as presumptive proof of his sincerity. Instead, they applied a rigid test: “If he is not with us, he must be against us.” This approach, however, was far too limited, failing to recognize the broader scope of God’s work beyond their immediate understanding.

A Historical Parallel: The Case of Sir Matthew Hale

This narrow way of thinking is not unique to the disciples; it has occurred throughout history. A notable example is found in the life of Sir Matthew Hale, a distinguished judge whose devout reflections are well-known. Despite his evident piety and moral integrity, some in his community doubted his spiritual state because he did not attend their private prayer meetings. Richard Baxter, a prominent theologian, recounted this episode and criticized such narrow-mindedness. Baxter, who had witnessed Hale’s profound expressions of faith and love for God, considered him more devout than himself. This story illustrates the danger of making harsh judgments based on external conformity rather than the true condition of the heart.

Jealousy and Conscientious Scruples

The disciples’ actions were likely driven by a mix of jealousy and genuine concern. They may have resented the idea of someone outside their group using Jesus’ name and wielding spiritual power. Their jealousy was akin to their earlier argument about who among them was the greatest. In both cases, the underlying issue was pride—whether in the form of a desire for exclusive authority or personal status.

However, not all their actions stemmed from jealousy. Some of their intolerance was rooted in sincere but misguided conscientiousness. They believed they were protecting the integrity of their mission by silencing the exorcist. Conscientiousness, when genuine, deserves respect even when it is mistaken. Yet, it is essential to recognize that scrupulosity can also mask pride and self-interest, as people sometimes use conscience to advance their own agendas under the guise of piety.

Jesus’ Correction and Instruction

Despite their flawed reasoning, the disciples were open to correction. They brought the matter to Jesus, seeking His judgment on whether they had acted rightly. Jesus responded with a clear and definitive instruction: “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). This teaching highlights the importance of judging by the heart’s intent rather than mere external affiliation.

Jesus’ words recall another of His teachings, where He stated, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). At first glance, these statements may seem contradictory, but they are consistent when understood in context. The key issue is the orientation of the heart. If a person’s heart is aligned with Christ, they are on His side, even if they do not outwardly belong to the recognized group. Conversely, those who oppose Christ in their hearts are against Him, regardless of their outward appearance of orthodoxy.

Wisdom and Charity in Judgment

Mark adds another saying of Jesus: “There is no one who will perform a miracle in my name who can soon afterward speak evil of me” (Mark 9:39). This statement acknowledges the possibility of people using Jesus’ name insincerely, but it also reflects a charitable and wise approach to judgment. Jesus recognized that while some might misuse His name, it was unlikely that someone performing genuine works in His name would turn against Him.

Jesus’ teaching encourages His disciples to be cautious in forming negative judgments about others. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, they should assume that those who act in Jesus’ name do so with sincerity and faith. This perspective is particularly important when there is little to gain from using Jesus’ name, as was the case during His ministry when following Him often brought opposition rather than reward.

Lessons for the Church

The lessons from this incident have broad implications for the church throughout history and today. One crucial takeaway is the need to avoid hasty judgments about others’ spiritual state based on external factors alone. As believers, we must resist the temptation to think that salvation and goodness are confined to our own community or denomination. Instead, we should be open to the possibility that God’s work extends beyond the boundaries we might expect, and we should be careful not to exclude those whom God has accepted.

This principle is not merely theoretical but has real-world implications. Throughout church history, the spirit of exclusion and intolerance has led to divisions, persecutions, and unnecessary suffering. The story of John Bunyan, imprisoned for his faith, is a poignant reminder of the consequences of such attitudes. Had the church more fully embraced the spirit of Christ, many of these dark chapters in history might have been avoided.

In a world where the church remains divided, there is a pressing need to remember Jesus’ teaching in the case of the exorcist. While full unity among Christians may be difficult to achieve, we can still recognize and respect those who truly love and serve Christ, even if they are not part of our specific group. By doing so, we affirm the broader work of God’s kingdom and avoid the sin of schism.

Many Christians today struggle with the same issues that plagued the disciples. There is a tendency to create exclusive circles and to view those outside with suspicion or disdain. This attitude is a form of legalism, which divides the body of Christ and undermines the spirit of adoption that should characterize God’s people. True spiritual maturity involves overcoming these divisions and recognizing that the church is not a private club but a community of believers united by their love for Christ.

The remedy for this division is either to foster a spirit of openness and mutual respect within our denominations or to create forums where Christians from different backgrounds can come together to discuss common concerns and work towards shared goals. Such efforts would reflect the spirit of the early church, which, despite its diversity, found unity in its commitment to Christ.

In conclusion, the incident of the interdicted exorcist challenges us to reexamine our attitudes towards others who may not share our exact beliefs or practices. It calls us to embrace a broader understanding of God’s work and to resist the temptation to judge others harshly based on outward appearances. By following Jesus’ example, we can build a church that reflects the true spirit of the gospel—a spirit marked by love, humility, and a commitment to the unity of all believers.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).