Does Mark 9:37-39 address Protestants?

[bnapgh]

Mark 9:37-40

32 And they came to Capharnaum. And when they were in the house, he asked them: What did you treat of in the way? 33 But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. 34 And sitting down, he called the twelve and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all and be minister of all. 35 And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: 36 Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me but him that sent me.

37 John answered him, saying: **Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us: and we forbade him. **38 But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name and can soon speak ill of me. 39 For he that is not against you is for you. 40 For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ: amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.

Does this address our Protestant brethren? If so, in what ways?

Why is it juxtaposed immediately after the apostles’ shame for arguing ‘‘which of them should be the greatest’’

Why is verse 40 juxtaposed here?

Why is verse 41 juxtaposed here?

Thoughts?

 

[jewelz]

I think Jesus is concerned that no one speak ill of him.
Of course, who would believe Jesus if people speak badly about him.
it is different when religion or church is attacked,
as to when Jesus’ personhood is attacked.
we should be defending and standing up for who Jesus is.
it is different when we are just defending our own beliefs,
our own church and leaders, and our own agendas.

and i think we should not limit Jesus to belong just
to a single christian church/group/sect/denomination.
if they belong to Christ and if we also belong to Christ,
then we should accept them as well since Christ accepted them.
who are we to say we are greater than others?
is it because we were the first or the original?

there were the apostles with Jesus.
and there were also the followers of John the Baptist.
then there was also Paul, not converted/called/ordained by the apostles nor a follower of John but called by Jesus himself.
And the apostles also accepted Paul because he belonged to Christ.

I think Protestants follow this passage, since there are many denominations and yet they should accept one another inspite of their differences, because they all belong to Christ.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I think that Augustine masterfully draws from this - “For he that is not against you is for you” - and its “competing” passage - “He that is not with me is against me” - and I feel Augustine’s urgent call to me to return to the Church:

‘I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs, by which I propose, with God’s help, to prove how rightly and truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Yet when the disciples had brought word to Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said, “Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.” If, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood, should gather in Christ’s name; and so there would be no truth in this, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” But if he required correction in the point where the disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, “Forbid him not,” prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which He then says, “He that is not against you is for you?” For in this point he was not against, but for them, when he was working miracles of healing in Christ’s name. That both, therefore, should be true, as both are true,–both the declaration, that “he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad;” and also the injunction, “Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you,”–what must we understand, except that the man was to be confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which he was not against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it should have so happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein he had gone astray?’ (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 1, Ch. 7)

 

[bnapgh]

i think we should not limit Jesus to belong just
to a single christian church/group/sect/denomination.
if they belong to Christ and if we also belong to Christ,
then we should accept them as well since Christ accepted them

Jewelz , thanks for joining in!

You hit some of the points I have been pondering!

On these boards and in life, there seems to be so much focus on differences and so little on what we share.

I think the distinction you draw between how people react to Christ and how they react to His Church (or churches) is a critical one!

Every time I contemplate and/or share Scripture I seem to become more enlightened by its richness for my own understanding.

You seem to see these verses refracting the light of Christ to clarify when He is discussing Himself and when His mystical body, the Church. You might be spot on!

Do you think Scripture purposely juxtaposes these four things as a lesson on the care and treatment of Protestants?

1. The pride of the Apostles about who is greatest;
2. The benefits to ‘‘you’’ (His Church) from some ‘‘other’’ (‘‘who followeth not us’’ as opposed to ‘‘Thee’’, as in ‘‘Thy name’’)
3. The children as ‘‘little ones that believe in me’’
4. The inevitable way Christ links the way we treat another to how we are treating Him.

Jewelz, I might take some exception with your characterization that ‘‘Protestants follow this passage, since there are many denominations and yet they should accept one another inspite of their differences.’’ I would agree that they ‘‘should’’ do that, but in my experience many Protestants not only fail on that front, but seem to relish flouting differences.

I think Pete Holter makes some excellent points on the next post, too.

Thanks for responding!

 

[bnapgh]

I think that Augustine masterfully draws from this - “For he that is not against you is for you” - and its “competing” passage - “He that is not with me is against me” - and I feel Augustine’s urgent call to me to return to the Church

Hey, Peter!

I was not familiar with that citation of Augustine’s. It is exactly the kind of analysis I was hoping for!

He — and you — make some excellent points.

One is the incredibly delicate distinction in wording in the two apparently conflicting Scripture citations. When Christ accents the positive (‘‘he that is not against you is for you’’) He uses the second person pronoun: you! When He accents the negative (‘‘he that is not with me is against me’’), he uses the first person pronoun: me. As Augustine points out, ‘‘both are true’’!

In Post #2, above, Jewelz highlights the subtle but important distinction between Christ in Himself versus Christ in His Mystical Body, His Church. To me, this is reaffirmed by the distinctive personal pronouns you point out that Scripture uses.

Another enlightening point to me is Augustine’s distinguishing between (a) the ‘‘wound’’ in the ‘‘communion’’ that the schismatic created being ‘‘cured’’ by the ‘‘medicine of the Church’’ and (b) the Church ‘‘recogniz(ing) with approbation’’… ‘‘what remained sound in him … rather …than (to) wound… by condemnation.’’ How insightful!!! How helpful to interchurch relations!!!

I do take note — as you, yourself, imply you are currently doing — that when Augustine refers to this healer ‘‘who followeth not’’ the Apostles, Augustine says he ‘‘confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name…and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering.’’ Wow!!! Shouldn’t that hit home with any Protestant?

But, perhaps what is to me the most telling quote from Augustine, is this:
‘‘If, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood.’’

To me this might very well be a tourniquet (albeit a semantical tourniquet) that could permit the 500 year old wound to heal.

When elsewhere I read Augustine’s analysis of heretical teaching, it seemed to me that the emphasis was not on whether the heretical argument contained any reasonable merit, but on the point that the Church deemed such an argument to be ‘‘scattering’’, not ‘‘gathering’’. This highlights two subtle but, to me, extremely important distinctions:

1. The Church’s primary charge is to ‘‘feed’’ Christ’s ‘‘sheep’’; and, 2. For any believer to be truly ‘‘safe’’ in his/her understanding of Christ’s message, it can only be IF that understanding is ‘‘in communion with His Church’’. To me, as I analyze the Church’s teaching on ‘‘infallibility’’, it is more about being all Christians’ safeguard, than being some sort of Scriptural ‘‘correct-o-type’’.

The ‘‘reasonableness’’ of Scriptural arguments is not the point! Each of us is free to follow his/her conscience at our own peril if that conscience does not conform with the teachings of His Church.

To my mind, this could be the very reason that Scripture juxtaposes the four points I highlighted above:

1. The pride of the Apostles about who is greatest;
2. The benefits to ‘‘you’’ (His Church) from some ‘‘other’’ (‘‘who followeth not us’’ as opposed to ‘‘Thee’’, as in ‘‘Thy name’’)
3. The children as ‘‘little ones that believe in me’’
4. The inevitable way Christ links the way we treat another to how we are treating Him.

Perhaps it is essential when we are trying to reconcile anyone ‘‘who followeth not us’’ to suppress questions of ‘‘which of (us) should be the greatest’’.

Perhaps it is essential when we are trying to reconcile anyone ‘‘who followeth not us’’ to remember that, at heart, such person is, Christ says, ‘‘with’’ us.

Perhaps it is essential when we are trying to reconcile anyone ‘‘who followeth not us’’ that Scripturally and to Christ these are ‘‘little ones that believe in (Him)’’

Perhaps it is essential when we are trying to reconcile anyone ‘‘who followeth not us’’, we must remember that ‘’whosoever shall receive one such …as this in my name receiveth me.’’

I pray that Christ will guide you in your own important choice.

I welcome your thoughts on any or all of this.

 

[JRKH]

I really have nothing to add to the discussion at this time, but thank you for the thread about a passage that has always troubled and intrigued me as well.

I am learning a great deal. Thanks to all who are posting.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Then He took a little child and set him in the midst of them. And when He had taken him in His arms, He said to them,
“Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me.”
Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.
For he who is not against us is on our side.
For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

There is an interesting difference in the translation of this last line in my NAB.:

But it would be better if anyone who leads astray one of these simple believers were to be plunged in the sea with a great millstone fastened around his neck.

It would certainly speak to the idea of taking great care with the faith of a “little one” or “simple believer”. In other words those who are young in their faith and not just in years.
We really should recognize that not everyone experiences faith in the same way or to the same degree. Some are more intellectual, others more emotive. Some only need and want a simple truth, others are compelled to constantly question and dig into their faith. Anyone who would be a teacher or evangelist must recognize this so as to properly approach others and be of help and not harm.

As to the idea of how this might apply to ecumenism, certainly we need to better understand each other, and by that I mean what, specifically, do we believe. For instance, how often do we find someone posting here about what the catholics supposedly believe, that we know for a fact is not true. I’m sure we do the same thing to our protestant bretheren. Too often we find ourselves here arguing over whether, “there are clouds in the sky, or there is sky around the clouds”, just because we don’t seem to be able to properly define terms with each other. It is such a frustrating thing for everyone.

Just my 2c

Peace
James

 

[bnapgh]

There is an interesting difference in the translation of this last line in my NAB.:

It would certainly speak to the idea of taking great care with the faith of a “little one” or “simple believer”. … Anyone who would be a teacher …must recognize this so as to …be of help and not harm.

…Too often we find ourselves here arguing …just because we don’t seem to be able to properly define terms …frustrating …everyone.

Just my 2c

Your translation makes the point even better!

I agree that most arguments seem to be semantical more than substantive. I also think most are ‘‘tribal’’ based. Us versus Them!

Thanks for the contribution.

 

[Pete_Holter]

One is the incredibly delicate distinction in wording in the two apparently conflicting Scripture citations. When Christ accents the positive …] He uses the second person pronoun: you! When He accents the negative …], he uses the first person pronoun: me.

I took a look at a few translations (including the New Vulgate) and they all have Mark 9:40 as “For the one who is not against us is for us.” If this is the case, then we have Jesus associating Himself with the apostles in this verse, which would ultimately include “those who will believe in Me through their word” (John 17:20), and, by considering what He says elsewhere, even identifying Himself with them as when He says to Saul, “why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4). But he does not similarly associate Himself with these others who, although casting out demons in the Name of Jesus, were not following Him and His apostles. This would make the distinction in wording even more delicate. The fact that they were casting out demons also makes me think of the Sermon on the Mount, of the “many” who were casting out demons in Jesus’ Name and yet were “workers of lawlessness,” not doing “the will of My Father Who is in heaven” (cf. Matt. 7:21-23).

It makes me wonder what relationship these others do have with Christ, and how much from these verses transfer to non-Catholic Christians of today. Somewhat related, I just want to share these thoughts from John XXIII that I appreciate: " 'Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are… Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is truth… Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me…that they may be perfected in unity. . . ’ We repeat this prayer, as does the whole Catholic world in union with Us. We are spurred by a burning love for all men, but also by that interior humility which the gospel teaches. For We know the lowliness of him whom God raised to the dignity of the Sovereign Pontificate, not because of Our merits, but according to His mysterious designs. Wherefore, to all Our brethren and sons who are separated from the Chair of Blessed Peter, We say again: ‘I am . . . Joseph, your brother.’ Come, ‘make room for us.’ We want nothing else, desire nothing else, pray God for nothing else but your salvation, your eternal happiness" (Ad Petri Cathedram, 89-90). What a beautiful petition!

Jesus goes on to say in Mark’s gospel that “whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will be no means lose his reward” (9:41). Putting these together – the demon casting and the cup giving – it suggests to me that Jesus looks more favorably on what people who are not following Him do on behalf of those who do follow Him, such as giving a cup of cold water; and He looks less favorably on the activity of these same people, which does not necessarily bring about discipleship, such as the casting out of demons and healings: “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?” (Luke 17:17). He more strongly approves the one but does not disapprove the other.

And I take “he shall by no means lose his reward”, as less of a promise to those who do not follow, and as more of an exhortation to those who do. I say this because anyone who turns away from Christ will certainly lose his reward and Jesus’ words are absolute. So I take the reward being spoken of here as whatever reward the disciple who has received this cup can return for this favor. I see Jesus telling his followers here to make sure that this cup does not return to the giver empty as He reminds them that “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). The Christian must outdo the non-Christian in giving so that “he shall by no means lose his reward”! “What I do have I give to you. In the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” (Acts 3:6) I welcome other interpretations and more is to be said here because the cup is given “because you belong to Christ,” which suggests these people who give the cup have a certain affinity for Christ, but it also suggests that these people themselves do not “belong to Christ” and for some reason they have not taken the final step of complete surrender.

Immediately after this, Mark records Jesus speaking of the “little ones.” Interestingly, Matthew has Jesus mention the little ones in his record of the cup of water saying: “And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will be by means lose his reward” (Matt. 10:42). As Jesus says, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children” (Matt. 11:25). This fits with the context of the first verses you mentioned where the disciples were arguing over who was the greatest. When they elsewhere ask Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matt. 18:1), He tells them that “unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven …] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4; 5:20). Because of this, I understand “little ones” as referring to all believers in Christ, and of the humble disposition required of those believers. “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43-44).

And I also agree with the previous poster that special care must be taken in the case of people who are weak in the faith.

By the way, I’ve enjoyed this thread!

Love,
Pete

 

[banjo]

“Our Lord corrects the exclusivist and intolerant attitude of the apostles. St. Paul later learned this lesson, as we can see from what he wrote during his imprisonment in Rome: ‘Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will …]. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice’ (Phil 1:15, 18). “ The Navarre Bible Commentary on Lk 9:49-50