Luke 9:50Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

For in the other place when He said, He that is not with me is against me, He shews the Devil and the Jews to be opposed to Him; but here He shews that he who in Christ’s name cast out devils, is partly on their side.

Now it seems that this feeling was excited by the circumstance of their not being able to cure the demoniac. And while they were disputing thereupon, one said, It was not owing to my weakness, but another’s, that he could not be cured; and so thereby was kindled a strife among them, which was the greatest.

As if He said, On the side of you who love Christ, are all they who wish to follow those things which conduce to His glory, being crowned with His grace.

An individual who exorcised demons using the authority of Christ was not opposed to His followers, as his actions were aligned with them through that divine power. However, his failure to accompany them indicated a separation, and thus he stood against them in that regard. When the disciples prohibited him from performing actions that demonstrated his alignment with them, the Lord instructed, ‘Do not forbid him.’ The essence of the prohibition concerned his actions outside their fellowship, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the unity of the Church. See Luke 11:23.

For he who receives the followers of Christ, receives Christ; and he who receives the image of God, receives God; but because we cannot see the image of God, it has been made present to us by the incarnation of the Word, that the divine nature which is above us, may be reconciled to us.

Mark also documented this in the twenty-seventh chapter, where one can find the explanation of it.

(Note: Original biblical quotations not included as per request.)

Or, because they saw Peter, James, and John, taken apart to the mount, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven promised to Peter, they were angry that these three, or Peter, should have precedence over all; or because in the payment of the tribute they saw Peter made equal to the Lord, they supposed he was to be placed before the rest. But the attentive reader will find that the question was raised among them before the payment of the penny. For in truth Matthew relates that this took place at Capernaum; but Mark says, And he came to Capernaum, and being in the house, he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves in the way? But they held their peace; for by the way they had disputed among themselves who should be the greatest. (Mat. 18:24, Mark 9:33.)

In concluding the significance of the messenger as solely representing the one who sent him, John, one of the earliest disciples, recounted an experience where he and another individual encountered a man who was expelling demons in Jesus’ name, despite not being part of their group, and they prohibited him from doing so. Such a naively sincere declaration! The Lord responded, “Do not hinder him: for no one who performs a miracle in my name can soon speak evil of me. Why should you, empowered by the same name, regard each other with such disparity? Though he does not walk alongside you, are you aware of the connection he shares with me?

The inquiry made by John, which interrupted the dialogue of Christ, is not included in Matthew’s account. Nevertheless, it holds significant weight in understanding the nature of the Lord's teachings in this context. The apostles likely encountered an individual during their ministry who was expelling demons in the name of Jesus Christ. His ability to perform such miraculous acts signifies that he was indeed a believer and a follower of the Lord. However, his lack of outward association with Christ suggests that he may have been a discreet follower, similar to Nicodemus, who hesitated to openly declare his faith; despite this, his profound inner connection to Christ resulted in him being bestowed with the gift of miracles.

Christ did not condone their actions and provided guidance for their future endeavors. He stated, "Do not hinder him (Mk. 9:39)," explaining that anyone performing miracles in His name truly believes in Him. Those who have faith in Him cannot be considered adversaries, at least in the immediate context, and if they later waver in their faith, that is a matter for the future; in the present, they do not oppose Him, and therefore do not act against you. He further affirmed, "He who is not against you is for you (Mk. 9:40)." Thus, do not prevent any good deeds done in My name, even by those who may not openly identify as My followers; instead, support them in every way possible.

The issue of humility reminded the apostle. John recalled an incident from his preaching days and sought clarification from Christ. During their evangelistic travels, they encountered a man casting out demons in Christ's name, yet because he was not part of their group, they prohibited him from doing so. Was this the correct course of action? Jesus responded negatively, instructing them, "do not forbid it." Those who perform acts of compassion in the name of Christ cannot misuse that name. Whoever is not opposed to us is on our side.

The teaching of the Lord regarding humility is presented in the Gospel of Luke. In comparison to the account in Mark, this teaching is more concise in Luke. While it is generally shorter than in Mark, certain aspects are more detailed than those found in Matthew. For further insights, refer to the notes on Matthew 18:1-5 and Mark 9:33-41, particularly regarding ‘perceiving the intentions of their hearts’ in the note on Mark 9:33-34.

Upon hearing these words from Jesus Christ, the apostle John recalled a significant occurrence that he eagerly wished to share for consideration: “Teacher, we encountered a man who was casting out demons in Your name, yet he does not follow us, so we stopped him.” The Lord responded, “Do not hinder him, for no one who performs miracles using My name can soon speak ill of Me. For whoever is not against us is for us.” This individual may have had a fledgling faith, yet he acted according to the measure of his belief. Regardless, his actions were not harmful, and thus there was no reason to impede him.