In the first case (Lk 11:23), the Lord had just cast out a demon from a man,and some of the Pharisees are saying that He is casting out demons by Beelzebub(vv. 14–15; cf. Mt 12:24). The Lord refutes their accusations, and then adds:“He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with mescattereth” (Lk 11:23). In the immediate context, therefore, the Lord is sayingthat anyone who does not affirm that He was casting out demons by the power ofGod rather than of Satan is really against Him. There can be no neutrality! Butmore broadly, what the Lord would be saying is that anyone who does not loveHim and confess Him as Lord is really against Him (cf. 1 Cor 16:22; 2 Jn 7).

In the second case (Lk 9:50), the Apostle John had said to the Lord: “Master,we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because hefolloweth not with us” (Lk 9:49). It is in answering John, that the Lord says:“Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us” (Lk 9:50). It isclear from the context that the Lord is not referring to those who are neutralin so far as His Lordship is concerned. The man who was casting out demons wasdoing so in His name! John had forbade him not because He was not a disciple ofChrist but because he was, for some reason, not following them or ministeringto the people with them. Thus, the Lord’s instruction to the disciples was thatthey should not regard themselves as having the exclusive rights of ministeringin Christ’s name. There are those who are not in their band, who arenevertheless for them. The disciples of the Lord should therefore rejoice thatthere are others who are also serving in the Lord’s name, instead ofrestricting them.

We are reminded of the event recorded in Numbers 11 where the LORD instructedMoses to gather seventy of the elders of the people so that He might put HisSpirit on them. Two of the seventy elders, Eldad and Medad, for some reason,did not gather at the Tabernacle as instructed. But when the Spirit of the LORDdescended, the sixty-eight at the Tabernacle began to prophesy, and so didEldad and Medad! A young man who saw it happening to Eldad and Medad ran totell Moses. Joshua overheard and was clearly displeased. He said: “My lordMoses, forbid them” (Num 11:28). Moses’ reply was instructive:

AndMoses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’speople were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Num11:29).

The Lord’s reply to the Apostle John appears to be in the same spirit as Moses’reply to Joshua. Joshua and John were both admonished for their inclination tointolerance or narrow exclusivism.

William Hendriksen’s observations concerning the appearance of this tendency inthe modern Church is most instructive:

Eventoday that spirit of narrow exclusivism is at times mistaken for loyalty toone’s church or denomination. We hear people say, “Our denomination is thepurest manifestation of the body of Christ on earth.” As long as we are on thissinful earth, a terrain where hypocrisy in high places frequently corrupts notonly political but even ecclesiastical life, would it not be better to leavesuch judgments to God? Let us not be more restrictive than was Moses. Let usnot be less broad-minded than was Paul (Phil 1:14–18). Let us follow theteaching of Jesus and, while maintaining what we ourselves regard as purity ofdoctrine, let us reach out the hand of brotherhood to all those who love theLord Jesus Christ and build upon the firm foundation of his infallible Word.Doing this, let us pray that we may be instrumental in leading others to theway of salvation, to the glory of God (1 Cor 9:19, 22; 10:31, 33) [Comm. on Luke 9:50].

It may, however, be legitimately asked: Does not the phrase “he that is notagainst us” admit to a great degree of latitude? What about such aspolythesists, pluralists, syncretists and universalists who claim to be friendswith us and wish to work with us? Can we build a relationship with them basedon the Lord’s words in Luke 9:50? Well, I do not think so, for the Lord’s wordin Luke 11:23 would warn us that such as are not with Christ as He is revealedin the Scriptures is really against Him. And in so far as these cannot possiblybe true disciples of Christ (Jn 14:6), we ought to have nothing to do with them(2 Cor 6:14–16). But what if they hold to serious doctrinal errors, but may beregarded as basically Christians, such as evangelical Arminians,Dispensationalists and Charismatics? What do we do? Well, perhaps a good way toapply this verse would be to balance between the magnanimity of Hendriksen’srecommendation and the caution of Calvin’s, as reflected in his commentary onthe same verse:

[The Lord] doesnot enjoin us to give a loose rein to rash men, and to be silent while theyintermeddle with this and the other matter, according to their own fancy, anddisturb the whole order of the Church: for such licentiousness, so far as ourcalling allows, must be restrained. He only affirms that they act improperly,who unseasonably prevent the kingdom of God from being advanced by any meanswhatever. And yet he does not acknowledge as his disciples, or reckon asbelonging to his flock, those who hold an intermediate place between enemiesand friends, but means that, so far as they do no harm, they are useful andprofitable: for it is a proverbial saying, which reminds us that we ought notto raise a quarrel till we are constrained (Comm.on Luke 9:50).