Luke 9:49,50

3 d. The Dissenting Disciple: Luke 9:49-50.

Only in some very rare cases does John play an active part in the Gospel history. But he appears to have been at this time in a state of great excitement; comp. the incident which immediately follows (Luke 9:54 et seq.), and another a little later (Matthew 20:20 et seq.). He had no doubt been one of the principal actors in the incident related here by himself, and which might very easily have had some connection with the dispute which had just been going on. The link of connection is more simple than criticism imagines. The importance which Jesus had just attributed to His name in the preceding answer, makes John fear that he has violated by his rashness the majesty of this august name. When once in the way of confession, he feels that he must make a clean breast of it. This connection is indicated by the terms ἀποκριθείς (Luke) and ἀπεκρίθη (Mark). This incident, placed here in close connection with the preceding, helps us to understand some parts of the lengthened discourse, Matthew 18, which certainly belongs to this period. These little ones, whom care must be taken not to offend (Luke 9:6), whom the good Shepherd seeks to save (Luke 9:11-13), and of whom not one by God's will shall perish (Luke 9:14), are doubtless beginners in the faith, such as he was towards whom the apostles had shown such intolerance. Thus it very often happens, that by bringing together separate stones scattered about in our three narratives, we succeed in reconstructing large portions of the edifice, and then, by joining it to the Gospel of John, the entire building.

The fact here mentioned is particularly interesting. “We see,” as Meyer says, “that even outside the circle of the permanent disciples of Jesus there were men in whom His word and His works had called forth a higher and miraculous power; these sparks, which fell beyond the circle of His disciples, had made flames burst forth here and there away from the central fire.” Was it desirable to extinguish these fires? It was a delicate question. Such men, though they had never lived in the society of Jesus, acquired a certain authority, and might use it to disseminate error. With this legitimate fear on the part of the Twelve there was no doubt mingled a reprehensible feeling of jealousy. They no longer had the monopoly of the work of Christ. Jesus instantly discerned this taint of evil in the conduct which they had just pursued.

In Luke, as in Mark, instead of the aor. ἐκωλύσαμεν, we forbade him, some MSS. read the imperf. ἐκωλύομεν : “We were forbidding him, and thought we were doing right; were we deceived?” Their opposition was only tentative, inasmuch as Jesus had not sanctioned it. This is the preferable reading.

The answer of Jesus is full of broad and exalted feeling. The divine powers which emanate from Him could not be completely contained in any visible society, not even in that of the Twelve. The fact of spiritual union with Him takes precedence of social communion with the other disciples. So far from treating a man who makes use of His name as an adversary, he must rather be regarded, even in his isolated position, as a useful auxiliary.

Of the three readings offered by the MSS. in Luke 9:50, and which are also found in Mark (against you for you; against you for us; against us for us), it appears to me that we must prefer the first: “He who is not against you, is for you. ” The authority of the Alex. MSS., which read in this way, is confirmed by that of the ancient versions, the Italic and the Peschito, and still more by the context. The person of Jesus is not in fact involved in this conflict, is it not in His name that the man acts? As a matter of fact, it is the Twelve who are concerned: “he followeth not with us; ” this is the grievance (Luke 9:49). It is quite different in the similar and apparently contradictory saying (Luke 11:23; Matthew 12:30): “ He who is not with me, is against me. ” The difference between these two declarations consists in this; in the second case, it is the personal honour of Jesus which is at stake. He opposes the expulsions of demons, which He effects, to those of the Jewish exorcists. These latter appear to be labouring with Him against a common enemy, but really they are strengthening the enemy. In the application which we might make of these maxims at the present day, the former would apply to brethren who, while separated from us ecclesiastically, are fighting with us for the cause of Christ; whilst the latter would apply to men who, although belonging to the same religious society as ourselves, are sapping the foundations of the gospel. We should have the sense to regard the first as allies, although found in a different camp; the others as enemies, although found in our own camp.

Mark introduces between the two parts of this reply a remarkable saying, the import of which is, that no one need fear that a man who does such works in the name of Jesus will readily pass over to the ranks of those who speak evil of Him, that is to say, of those who accuse Him of casting out devils by Beelzebub. After having invoked the name of Jesus in working a cure, to bring such an accusation against Jesus would be to accuse himself.

Nowhere, perhaps, is the fitting of the Syn. one into the other, albeit quite undesigned, more remarkable. In Matthew the words, without the occasion of them (the dispute between the disciples); in Luke the incident, with a brief saying having reference to it; in Mark the incident, with some very graphic and much more circumstantial details than in Luke, and a discourse which resembles in part that in Matthew, but differs from both by omissions and additions which are equally important. Is not the mutual independence of the three traditional narratives palpably proved?