For Us or Against Us
Mar 27, 2012 by Craig Blomberg | 5 Comments
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt. 12:30).
“For whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).
A superficial comparison of these two texts and you might imagine Jesus was bipolar! In the throes of depression, he lamented that all those not explicitly following him were his opponents. But at the height of his euphoria, he insisted that everyone not explicitly opposing him was on his side. If ever there seems to be a blatant contradiction in Scripture, this is it, right?
Hang on a second. Context always proves crucial in interpretation, so we’d better find out the context of these two pithy proverbs. The more negative-sounding text in Matthew 12 comes in the context of certain Jewish leaders accusing Jesus of casting out demons by the devil himself. This kind of not being with Jesus clearly is opposed to his ministry!
The context of Mark 9:40 is that some individual not a part of the twelve apostles were casting out demons in Jesus’ name. The twelve told him to stop, but Jesus told the twelve not to do so. Anyone who successfully used Jesus’ name—representing his power—would have been a true Christ-follower, even if he wasn’t directly a part of Jesus’ traveling entourage. After all, Acts 19:13-16 shows what happens when somebody tries that ploy, as if it were something automatic, who does not have faith in Christ!
So there’s no contradiction. Each statement makes sense in context. More interesting, perhaps, is the question of contemporary application. Some Christians act as if everyone who is not unambiguously a part of their small circle of carefully defined followers of Jesus could never be a true believer. But if someone is successfully drawing on Christ’s power, doing good deeds in his name, and the Jesus they profess is the Jesus of the Bible, then we are usually on safe ground assuming such people are true believers even if not a part of our denomination, fellowship, theological tradition, and the like.
Other Christians promote universalism (the notion that one day everyone will be saved irrespective of their religious commitments in this life) or quasi-universalism (thinking only a few of humanity’s very most wicked people will ever go to hell). These Christians need to realize that there are important theological distinctions to be drawn, over the very most fundamental or central of Christian doctrines, without which a person cannot be saved, no matter how many good deeds they may do. Consciously rejecting the Jesus of the Bible, knowing full well that the devil’s “fruit” is vastly different from that exhibited by Jesus, cannot but leave a person separated from God, both in this life and in the life to come.
Ah, you say, but the first application is far too generous. True Christians absolutely must believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the 4th and 5th century creedal definitions of the Trinity, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, Christ’s imminent return, and so on. Really? Romans 10:9-10 says merely that “If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” Some of the doctrines I listed may need to be true in order for people to appropriate salvation (e.g., substitutionary atonement) but that is separate from their having to believe it is true.
Well, surely, then the second application is far too narrow. It’s just plain bigoted to claim that Christ is the only way. Again, I ask, really? The question is actually if there is only one way. If there is, then to believe that there is isn’t bigoted, it’s smart. And the charge that Jesus was narrow-minded when he said that he was the way, truth and life and that no one comes to the Father but by him (John 14:6) is itself a hypocritical charge because every person who ever makes it functions daily with all kinds of true beliefs about things being the only way.
The only way to execute a computer program may be to hit a certain sequence of keys; one mistake and the program doesn’t work. The only way to score a touchdown in American football is to have the football be in the end zone, however briefly, with a player in possession of it. There is usually only one right way to get to the middle of a hedge maze, there are many small parking lots with only one exit, and only one classroom on a given campus in which most classes meet at a given time. Yet who would ever think of complaining about computer programs, football rules, mazes, parking lots or registrar’s course schedules being too narrow minded?
Those who are not with us are against us but those who are not against us are for us. Which of these two truths do you most need to hear and appropriate?
Comments
5 Comments | Login to Post Comments
Steve Johnson Apr 3, 2012 10:48am
Thanks for a great post.
You touch on something here that I have been pondering at length -- the tendency amongst some (especially within the evangelical/fundamentalist camps) to narrowly and rigorously define what true belief entails.
You wrote: "Ah, you say, but the first application is far too generous. True Christians absolutely must believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the 4th and 5th century creedal definitions of the Trinity, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, Christ’s imminent return, and so on. Really?"
May I expand this list? I am surprised at how often the age of the earth and belief in a 24hr/7day creation becomes a litmus test. I am surprised how many churches (and seminaries in your case) require affirmation of a belief in pre-millenialism in order to be a member of their fellowship. I am surprised that some choose to make the method by which baptism takes place a priority over the act of obedience itself. And on it goes.
Of course, one could argue that many fellowships that hold the above views would allow attendance of one who believes otherwise, but they would not be permitted full fellowship, voting privileges, leadership privileges or the like. For all intents and purposes, is that not the same as rejecting that person as an unbeliever? As an outsider?
A couple final thoughts. What would Jesus make of our "Statements of Faith"? And how many giants of Church History through the ages would be refused membership within our church bodies because they don't adhere with exactness to a faith document that we have created?
Thanks again for your post.
Gary Ottoson Apr 6, 2012 11:18am
Thoughtful, Craig! -and Steve J. (comments)..
Craig Blomberg Apr 7, 2012 11:33am
Thanks, Steve and Gary. Such statements of faith always have a history behind them. And the realities of life in a fallen world are that there are always stakeholders with vested interests in the disputed clauses that make it difficult if not impossible to change or abolish them. Having said that, I can certainly agree with you that premillennialism hardly qualifies as a litmus test for much of anything. The baptism issue is trickier, since I myself became a baptist at age 25 after having been raised in a church that practiced paedobaptism. Because i did not come to what I would consider saving faith through that congregation, and because I became convinced that the NT does not teach the baptism of infants but only of those old enough to believe, I did not view my immersion as a "rebaptism"--it was, rather, my first, true, biblical baptism. Yet at the same time I have no trouble supporting evangelical paedobaptists in their ministries and I understand the arguments for their positions. But were Denver Seminary, say, to continue with its commitment to hiring full-time faculty who can affirm believer's baptism while allowing students, staff and adjuncts all to hold any position whatsoever on the topic, I wouldn't think that was in any way calling into question their salvation, sanctification or obedience. Rather, it's saying the school was founded within one Christian tradition that we'd like to keep slightly central even while respecting great diversity on a variety of debates.
Christian Kumpost Jun 19, 2012 4:53pm
Dr. Blomberg,
What struck me most about (re)reading these texts in your post, and--furthermore, what didn't seem to be covered was the personal, individual implication (that is to say, implied but not directly stated by the "historical" Jesus in text, which still *seems to* align holistically with Scripture, and particularly with other passages of Scripture) that--as you stated at the end, "Those who are not with us are against us but those who are not against us are for us."
That is to say, I (and--all of humanity, for that matter) am divided. As Paul states in Romans, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do,"..."For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing."
To me, this passage strikes the personal implication that when I struggle with things that are "me" but may or may not be "me," a conclusive point of peace and understanding lay in the two conjoined passages of scripture of which you began your post with.
That is to say, The parts OF ME that are not with CHRIST IN ME are AGAINST US--CHRIST IN ME, but those parts IN/OF ME that are not against US (CHRIST IN ME, THE TWO OF US) are for US--that is, not opposed to Christ's work in me.
And what is His work in me? What but as He states in His Revelation, "I am making ALL things new." Thus, I am being made new.
I am being (slowly) rid of the parts that are "AGAINST"--that is, my Sin Nature, until such time as I am complete and the parts that are doing what "is not good," are burned away.
Another way to put it which--yes, individualizes it, but I do not find that it runs contrary to God's Word, is that the parts of me that is tare will be burned away while the wheat remains; the goat in me will be cast out while the lamb remains.
And in the end, I will--as Isaiah says, be one of the "they," (all mankind) who goes out and looks "upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against [God]." (Isaiah 66:24)
That is, the part of me that will endure forever will look upon the part(s) of me that rebelled against God, that did not do what I wanted to do, that were not "with us--Christ and I."
Anyway, thanks for your post, and while I understand I'm a few months late on the uptake, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Craig Blomberg Jun 20, 2012 4:00pm
Yes, Christian there are definitely close and significant parallels between varying people's response to Jesus and the varying responses an individual makes at different times. Thanks for your post.