"Going"
"SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW US"
Every so often someone comes along with a saying or an argument that has been answered many times. So, we answer it again. One of those relates to Mark 9:38-40 or the even shorter account in Luke 9:49-50. John comes to Jesus and tells Him that "one who does not follow us" was casting out demons, and they forbade him from doing so. Jesus surprises them by saying they should not forbid him, for no one who does a miracle in the name of Jesus can soon afterward speak evil of Him. He adds: "For He who is not against us is on our side" (Mark 9:40).
The misapplication of this passage is that we must be careful about speaking against denominationalism and various sects of Christianity because God may be working with them. One must wrench these verses mercilessly in order to get them to say such a thing. Why is such an application of this text so false? Following are a few reasons this explanation fails to work.
Jesus did not tell the twelve everything. After feeding the 5,000, Jesus "made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side…" (Mark 6:45). They did not know how, when, or where He would join them; they were greatly surprised when they saw Him walking on the water in the middle of the night (6:48-51).
What arrangements had Jesus made with someone in Jerusalem? Neither the disciples nor we know the answer to that question. All we know is that when two of the disciples went to the city and unloosed the colt, some standing nearby asked what they were doing. They spoke the words Jesus had given them to say and immediately received permission to bring the colt to Jesus (Mark 11:1-7). If Jesus had made prior arrangements, the disciples did not know of it.
Procuring the location for the last Passover also carries with it a mysterious element. Jesus sent two disciples into Jerusalem, where they would be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. The Lord told them to follow him until he went into a house. They too entered and said, "The Teacher says, 'Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?'" (Mark 14:13-14). Either Jesus knew whom He could rely upon at the last minute, or He had made prior arrangements. In either case, the disciples knew nothing about it.
Who, therefore, was this man who was casting out demons? Was he presumptuous and doing so without Jesus' permission? Or was he someone who, like Nicodemus, came to Jesus secretly and had His permission to do what he was doing? In another case there was real presumption. Some Jewish exorcists "took it upon themselves to call the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits…." They tried to cast out a demon "by the Jesus whom Paul preaches" (Acts 19:13). They failed miserably because the evil spirit did not recognize their authority. He leaped on them and overpowered them, causing them to flee from the house naked and wounded (v. 16). If the man mentioned in Mark 9 had likewise cast out demons without the Lord's authority, he would have met with a similar dismal outcome.
Did John not wonder how it was that the man could cast out a demon, period? If Jesus did not give him the authority, where did he get it from? This would appear to be a situation like that of Rhoda. She was so overjoyed to see Peter at the door that she ran in to inform everyone else while leaving him outside to continue knocking (Acts 12:13-16). In this situation John and the others had primarily noticed that the man did not follow with them; so they forbade him to do what he was doing without being amazed that someone besides them could do what he did.
Nor did it occur to any of them that God used miracles to endorse the one teaching or preaching. How could God be endorsing this man by allowing him to cast out demons if he was not a true follower of God? Did he cast out demons by his own authority? Who else was in that category? The only other alternative is that Satan empowered him, but he could not do what he did by ability from the devil because then, as Jesus pointed out, Satan would be casting out Satan (Matt. 12:25-26).
Jesus was not giving His disciples a lesson in sectarianism so much as teaching them humility. There were sects of the Jews but only a few of them. The Pharisees (generally) were the most devout; the Sadducees the most practical (in going along with whoever ruled); the Zealots desired to overthrow Rome, and the Essenes lived in isolated communes to keep away from the pollutions of the world. Jesus did not endorse any of these, but He did condemn their major teachings as false.
The Pharisees relied on traditions more than God's commandments, and many were hypocrites, desiring the reputation of being devout without actually being dedicated to God (Matt. 23). The Sadducees did not believe in angels or the resurrection; Jesus pointed out to them their fundamental error while answering their own illustration (Matt. 22:23-33). Jesus did not uphold the militaristic thinking of the Zealots. In fact, living by the sword earns a person a good chance of dying by the sword (Matt. 26:52). The Lord emphasized loving one another—even one's enemies—not killing one another (Matt. 22:37-40; cf. Matt. 5:43-48). As for the Essenes, one cannot be the light of the world and the salt of the earth if totally separated from humanity (Matt. 5:13-16).
How could all of these different groups achieve unity? We need not strain ourselves trying to answer the question, for the New Testament supplies a solution. They could (and were) all united in Christ. Simon, one of the twelve, had been a Zealot. Paul had been a Pharisee's Pharisee. Some in Corinth may have been Sadducees, since they had problems with the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). Nothing indicates that any Christians had been Essenes. All these religious groups had to do to ensure unity was to give up whatever false teachings they once held and maintain loyalty to the truth.
Therefore, it seems that what Jesus is doing is not trying to justify or encourage division amongst His followers; He is simply teaching His disciples they did not know everything. (How many would have predicted that Jesus' body would be buried by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea?) Furthermore, would a man with the power and authority to cast out a demon speak evil of Jesus? Had it not occurred to them that if he was not opposing Jesus that he was on their side (Mark 9:39-40)? No, it had not! But it would now. It is a humbling experience when a person who thinks he has all the inside information finds out he does not.
This passage in no way endorses division. The only legitimate conclusion that one can draw from Mark 9:38-40 is that, while Jesus was on earth, He had contact with others besides the twelve that He was training. He had contacts in Jerusalem, two friends in the Sanhedrin, and at least one other worker who was casting out demons.
So how does this text justify Christians being divided into more than 200 groups, each with its own distinctive doctrines? How does one read that kind of situation into this text? In the first place, have we forgotten that Jesus prayed for the unity of His followers? Perhaps a reminder would be in order. In the Garden of Gethsemane, we read the Lord's actual prayer, part of which is for His disciples:
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me" (John 17:20-21).
Are we to believe that the Person Who made such a sincere plea for unity on the eve of the crucifixion could possibly be satisfied with 200 schisms among those claiming to follow Him? And that He further spoke the words in Mark 9:38-40 to admonish anyone who would criticize one of the other 199 sects? A double-jointed contortionist could not accomplish such a task—even if his limbs were made of rubber! Jesus, Who was able to unite all the sects of the Jews together in Him—not to mention the Gentiles, also—cannot possibly be associated with the division that characterizes denominationalism!
Jesus united people by exposing the errors of the groups that existed and by teaching truth. This approach has never been replaced by a better system. The apostles followed this pattern. They taught the church the truth, and the members "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine…" (Acts 2:42). As long as this practice continued, unity reigned among God's people. And when division began creeping into the Corinthian Church not long after it was begun, Paul stated clearly that the church belonged to Christ—not men. He asked them if Paul were crucified for them or if they were baptized in Paul's name. The implied answer is no, and therefore they should not call themselves after his (Paul's) name—but only Christ's (1 Cor. 1:10-13). He also told them that, while they were thinking it was all right to be divided, they were carnal (1 Cor. 3:4).
"Well, then, how did we get so many divisions?" one might wonder. The first one came as a result of the Judaizing teachers who would not let go of the Law of Moses. This problem was settled by the apostles and elders of Jerusalem in Acts 15. It was decided by the spiritual leaders of the church, and it was resolved on the basis of Scriptures and proper reasoning. What caused disunity was the refusal of that group to recognize the authority of Jesus Christ (continued through His apostles). And that is the way that every division has come about since then—people refuse to submit to the Head of the church (Matt. 28:18). Jesus does not recognize one sect purportedly belonging to Him. Those not striving for the unity of all believers (in the proper manner) He rejects. The use of Mark 9:38-40 to justify division flies in the face of what Jesus practiced and what He prayed for.
The Solution
Christians must agree on fundamental truths, and one of those involves salvation. One cannot be saved by "faith only" while others must repent and be baptized. Having two opposing plans implies contradiction. All must have faith, but Jesus clearly teaches the necessity of repentance (Luke 13:3). Likewise, Peter taught the essentiality of being baptized (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21).
New Testament baptism and denominational baptism are not the same. No one ever became a Christian in the New Testament by having water sprinkled or poured over him. No one does today, either. Many think they are Christians because they were sprinkled in childhood, but they are not—because sprinkling is not valid. The word baptize means "to immerse." It is not sectarian to point this out; it is the truth which people need in order to be saved.
Likewise, Baptist baptism is not valid, either—even though they immerse. One cannot be saved before baptism and also during baptism, which Romans 6:3-5 teaches. Baptists freely admit that their baptism does not save from sins (despite Mark 16:16). They insist one is saved at the point of faith. Their baptism is only for obedience's sake or to join the Baptist Church.
If, therefore, people's sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus when they are baptized (and they are—Acts 22:16, Rev. 1:5), then those who are baptized for some other reason remain lost in their sins. People do not become Christians by refusing to listen to Jesus and His apostles—but only by obeying the truth (John 8:31-32). Being baptized for just any reason is not the right reason. Being sprinkled is not even being baptized. Let all who truly desire to please the One Who died for our sins follow His teaching exclusively and depart from the doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. 15:8-9).