demons in Christ's name. Again, the other disciples only came into Capernaum, and
entered the house, just as Peter had gone for the Stater, with which to pay the Temple -
tribute for the Master and himself. And, if speculation be permissible, we would suggest
that the brother, whose offences Peter found it so difficult to forgive, may have been
none other than Judas. In such a dispute by the way, he, with his Judaistic views, would
be specially interested; perhaps he may have been its chief instigator; certainly, he,
whose natural character, amidst its sharp contrasts to that of Peter, presented so many
points of resemblance to it, would, on many grounds, be specially jealous of, and
antagonistic to him.
Quite natural in view of this dispute by the way is another incident of the journey, which
is afterwards related.35 As we judge, John seems to have been the principal actor in it;
perhaps, in the absence of Peter, he claimed the leadership. They had met one who
was casting out demons in the Name of Christ - whether successfully or not, we need
scarcely inquire. So widely had faith in the power of Jesus extended; so real was the
belief in the subjection of the demons to Him; so reverent was the acknowledgment of
Him. A man, who, thus forsaking the methods of Jewish exorcists, owned Jesus in the
face of the Jewish world, could not be far from the Kingdom of Heaven; at any rate, he
could not quickly speak evil o f Him. John had, in name of the disciples, forbidden him,
because he had not cast in his lot wholly with them. It was quite in the spirit of their
ideas about the Messianic Kingdom, and of their dispute, which of His close followers
would be greatest there . And yet, they might deceive themselves as to the motives of
their conduct. If it were not almost impertinence to use such terms, we would have said
that there was infinite wisdom and kindness in the answer which the Saviour gave,
when referred to on the subject. To forbid a man, in such circumstances, would be
either prompted by the spirit of the dispute by the way - or else must be grounded on
evidence that the motive was, or the effect would ultimately be (as in the case of the
sons of Sceva) to lead me n 'to speak evil' of Christ, or to hinder the work of His
disciples. Assuredly, such could not have been the case with a man, who invoked His
Name, and perhaps experienced its efficacy. More than this - and here is an eternal
principle: 'He that is not against us is for us;' he that opposeth not the disciples, really is
for them - a saying still more clear, when we adopt the better reading in St. Luke,36 'He
that is not against you is for you.'37
35. St. Mark ix. 38; St. Luke ix. 49.
36. St. Luke ix. 50.
37. Readers of ordinary sobriety of judgment will form their opinions of the value of
modern negative criticism, when we tell them that it has discovered in this man who did
not follow with the disciples an allusion to 'Pauline Christianity,' of which St. Mark took a
more charitable view than St. Matthew! By such treatment it would not be difficult to make
anything of the facts of history.
There was reproof in this, as well as instruction, deeply consistent with that other,
though seemingly different, saying:38 'He that is not with Me is against Me.' The
distinction between them is twofold. In the one case it is 'not against,' in the other it is
'not with;' but chiefly it lies in this: in the one case it is not against the disciples in their
work, while in the other it is - not with Christ. A man who did what he could with such