And they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. And sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all." And taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, "Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."
  John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us."
  But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who shall perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward (Mark 9:33-41, NASB here and throughout).

Yet, it appears that this man was successful at casting out demons, unlike the sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14). This man had something going for him besides what the apostles probably considered mere audacity-- God was at work in his ministry.

Another day, these same apostles were with Jesus, discussing who among them was the greatest. What are some of the criteria they could have used?

• Who was picked as an apostle first
• The most spiritual
• The oldest
• The wealthiest
• The most "effective" or "fruitful"
• The best countenance
• The best speaker
• The best looking
• The best clothes
• The best manners
• The most assertive
• The most loyal
• The smartest
• The wisest
• The most creative
• The strongest, most athletic or most physically fit
• The most worldly accomplishments prior to apostleship
• The "coolest"
• Picked by Jesus to do something special (e.g. go on the mount of transfiguration, take on a special responsibility, etc.)
• The one with the most important responsibilities
• The one to whom Jesus gave the most attention

John (one of the "sons of thunder" cf.  Mark 3:17, Luke 9:54) decided to bring up the incident about this man from the recent past. It seems to be an attempt at receiving some sort of validation from Jesus, that at least they were "in the top twelve." But Jesus used the incident to teach a lesson that is as important today as it was then.

Jesus' Movement and His Instruments
Compared to the unknown exorcist, the apostles may have felt their role (and subsequent "greatness") was in question. As long as this man continued his work, in their eyes they were less special, less unique-- less "great."

But Jesus knew that his role was never in question. Demons were still being cast out "in Jesus' name." Jesus is still the Christ. Jesus didn't have any problems with what this man was doing (cf. Numbers 11:29).

Jesus urged the apostles not to concern themselves with this man, either. He gave them two pretty good reasons to do so:

1. Someone doing a miracle in Jesus' name wouldn't be saying something bad about Jesus anytime soon.
2. If this man wasn't opposing them, why should they oppose him?

Jesus had to endure questions of comparison frequently. Even after his denial and restoration, Peter asked Jesus, "What about him?" meaning the apostle John. The Lord's answer strikes the same chord: "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me! (John 21:22)." As the gospels end, we're not sure if the apostles have learned the lesson or not.

Did the Apostles Learn the Lesson?
One day many years later, Barnabas brought a man to Peter. Unlike the anonymous exorcist, this man had a name and a reputation-- a bad reputation. His name was Saul of Tarsus, whom we know as the apostle Paul. Let's see what Luke relates about the incident:

  And when he had come to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus (Acts 9:23-30).

  But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
   Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they were glorifying God because of me (Galatians 1:15-24, emphasis mine).

(There is some debate among scholars about this pairing of the Jerusalem visits in Acts and Galatians. I tend to agree with most scholars who match these up in this manner because of the order of events in Acts and Galatians, and that both mention the subsequent travel to Tarsus/Cilicia and the next visit to Jerusalem.)

  But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised (Galatians 2:6-9, emphasis mine).

  But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15).

  For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).

  But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you (Acts 26:16-17).

Names of Modern-Day Movements and Modern-Day Sauls
In the old days (1980's), we were a campus ministry movement in the churches of Christ. When someone said "The Movement" you knew what they meant. Someone stuck "of God" on the end because it was felt that God was truly working among us. No argument from me there! But when you put these two together, you get something more than the mere sum of its parts: "The Movement of God" and then (thanks to the "man, message, movement" theology) "The Modern-Day Movement of God."  This has become the favorite way to refer to the ICOC by its leaders. Yet, I am greatly troubled by what this name has come to represent.

First, there is a suggestion of exclusivity-- that we constitute God's only avenue of work in the world today. This is clearly and obviously untrue. If the apostles themselves didn't claim exclusivity in the work of the Lord, what group of people today could possibly hope to do so?

People enter God's kingdom or "movement" or church by virtue of being born of God (John 1:14, 3:3-5). When someone responds to the gospel in new birth, he is added to the kingdom by God (Acts 2:41, 47). It doesn't matter who teaches them, God is the one who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7). Just because God is working among us in "Judea," can he not work apart from us in "Damascus?" Is God not capable of utilizing anyone else to teach people the appropriate response to the gospel? We can be confident in God working in our ministry without being arrogant towards God working in the ministries of others.

Second, Paul's ministry was a "movement of God" long before the Jerusalem apostles even heard of it, and it would have remained a "movement of God" whether the Jerusalem apostles recognized it or not. Whatever the Jerusalem apostles said about themselves didn't mean anything about what God was doing in the ministry of Paul. The association of Paul with Jerusalem came in due time, but the thing of substance-- the gospel and the mission-- came to him first, separate from the others.

Maybe "The Modern-Day Movement of God" is simply a catchy phrase, maybe it makes us feel more important. One thing is certain, however-- the term carries connotations that are misleading to those who hear it and use it. I'd say the simple and elegant "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" was good enough for Christians in Bible times, and it should be good enough for us.

And speaking of the apostles, we also ought to follow their example in overcoming selfish concerns of greatness and exclusivity in our own ministries. Then we will be ready to perceive and recognize the work of God through the "Sauls of Tarsus" of our day.

Copyright © 2000 John Engler. All rights reserved. Send a letter to the editor concerning this article