The Jealousy of the Apostles

S. Mark ix. 30–41

After leaving the scene of the Transfiguration, our Lord turned southwards, and went to and fro l through the northern parts of Galilee. He desired to avoid publicity, so would probably leave the main roads, and turn aside to bypaths through woods and fields. “He would not that any should know it, for He taught His disciples;” rather it should be, “He was teaching” them. He had a lesson to impress upon their minds which required both time and freedom from distraction; He had to prepare them for His Death, and the failure of their earthly hopes and aspirations. From time to time He had given hints of what was coming. On the eve of the Transfiguration He had spoken with such clearness that the chief of their number had been offended at His words, and now He emphasises it by repetition. But their minds were so set upon earthly things, and their hopes so circumscribed, that the announcement of coming shame was entirely eclipsed by the predictions of glory, and they could think only of the latter, and that, according to their own carnal conceptions. So it was that, forgetting what He had said about suffering and death, or allowing it only as a passing cloud to overshadow their spirits for a moment, they thought that the kingdom was near at hand. It was associated in their minds with places of honour and distinction, and they began to speculate on their respective claims. The promise to S. Peter had no doubt excited the jealousy of some of them; and it may be the selection of “the Inner Circle” to be eyewitnesses of His glory had given rise to heart-burnings, possibly had tempted the chosen three to exalt themselves over their brethren, for as yet even these were far from perfect. At all events feelings of jealous rivalry had been aroused among them, and they had disputed with each other on their journeys who should be greatest in the Messianic kingdom.

When they came to Capernaum, Jesus, Who had been conscious of their unworthy wranglings, determined to rebuke them; and He did it not by word only, but by a symbolical act of striking significance. He began by telling them that selfseeking brings no real gain, and to desire distinction is certain to end in disappointment. Humility, not ambition, is the road to honour. Suiting the action to the word, He took a little child, and folding him tenderly in His arms, pointed to him as the model. for them to copy, if they wished to attain to true greatness. Who the child was, it would be interesting to know. If S. Peter had children, which we are not told in Scripture, it would in all probability have been one of his, for the scene took place in his house, where our Lord usually abode in Capernaum. Two traditions have come down, though neither of them from an early age, or resting upon any substantial authority, — one, that it was Martial, a disciple of S. Peter, and in later times a missionary Bishop in Gaul; the other, that it was S. Ignatius, the Martyr.

Now it must not be supposed that Jesus intended by that act to withhold from the Apostles any supremacy in His kingdom, or to imply that there would be no subordination in order of dignity and honour. He cannot contradict Himself, and we know that He promised shortly after that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The very figure of a kingdom, too, involved different degrees of power and authority. But what He desired was to strike a blow at their idea that there was any- real resemblance between a kingdom of this world and that which He was about to set up. The principles of honour and advancement which held in the two were essentially unlike. In the one, the selfseeking and ambitious gain the pre-eminence; in the other, renunciation is the only certain pathway to distinction. In the former, honour and power are sought by rivals, who are always “struggling upwards to overtop and rule each other;” in the latter, men “stoop down in lowliness and humility in order to draw each other up.”

Our Lord then having taught a lesson from the child as a pattern of humility, now sets it forth as a type of the lowly in station; and shows how any “one of such children” deserves kindness and consideration in His Name, and for His sake.

The reference to the duty of receiving others in Christ’s Name pricked the conscience of one of the disciples, and recalled a scene which had lately occurred. They had fallen in with a man, who was casting out evil spirits in the Name of Jesus, having no connection with the Apostolic company, and refusing to join it; and S. John makes known to the Master what course they had pursued. “We forbad him, because he followeth not us.” But Jesus rebuked him for what they had done; and His words have been often claimed as affording direct justification for those who elect to work in separation from the Church. An examination of the circumstances of the case will show that the claim cannot be maintained.

It is not told us in so many words, but there is sufficient evidence that the man was working, not by his own independent will, but under Divine authority. Possibly he was one of John’s disciples, or perhaps one of the Seventy; but in any case he carried with him his credentials, for it is not said merely that he was attempting to cast out evil spirits, but that he was doing it. He was no pretender, such as we meet with at a later period in the sons of Sceva, who used the Name for the same purpose, but were unsupported by the Divine co-operation. He was, by the Apostles’ own confession, exercising miraculous powers; and the sole reason which prompted them to stay his hand was an unworthy spirit of envy and jealousy that anything should be done in their Master’s cause outside their own company. Jesus discerned their motive at once, and not only reproved them,, but went on to extend the principle to other acts besides that of casting out evil spirits. The least beneficent deed done simply for Christ’s sake — even “a cup of water” given in His Name — should not lose its reward.

Now separatists from the Church often claim Divine sanction on the ground that their credentials may be seen in the success of their work, just as his was; but there is a broad distinction between the two cases. It may be quite true that God’s work is sometimes done by them, as it was by him; but what He approved under certain conditions, He has only permitted under others. For instance, the man of whom we are speaking contravened no law whatever, and so Christ could sanction both the act and the way in which it was done. Dissenters from the discipline of the Church, on the other hand, transgress the law of unity, which He laid down; and though the work they do may be done for His sake, and accepted on that account, their mode of effecting it is contrary to His original purpose, and cannot as such merit His approval.

It was no breach of Church order or discipline at that time not to follow the Apostles, because the Church was not yet founded, and nothing had taken place to lead the Apostles to suppose that separation from them was a violation of Christ’s law. The commission, “As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you,” had not yet been received. Had this event happened after the Ascension or Pentecost, when the Church organisation on Apostolic authority was definitely inaugurated, the prohibition, “Forbid him not,” would have worn an altogether different aspect. It is an excellent illustration of the dangerous mistake of isolating a passage from its context, and treating a special direction as though it established a general principle for all time, and under every condition. We must interpret Scripture by Scripture. The true mind of Christ on the subject of Dissent may be gathered with unmistakable clearness, both from His Own prayer for unity, and from the utterances of those who were empowered to be its exponents after the Church was founded. If it be suggested, as it so often is, that it was spiritual unity for which He prayed, S. Paul steps in and shows that he not only longed for men to be of one heart, holding the unity of the Faith, but that he deprecated most sorely separation from the visible Body as the clearest proof of a carnal mind. “Whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” And S. Jude indorses the verdict when he says of those “who separate themselves,” that they are “sensual,” 1 and have not the Spirit of God.

1 <frvxu<ol, translated “natural” and “sensual” in the New Testament, is used in a different sense from that in which it was used in classical Greek. Scripture taught the tripartite division of man’s nature, i Thess. v. 23. The “natural” man is henceforward one in whom the lpipxv< not the irvevfia, is the ruling principle. Cf. Trench, Synon. of the New Testament.

Note: The A.V. in S. Matt. xvii. 22 renders dvacrrpecpo/JLepcou abode.” — The expression rather implies constant moving about. while they

Note: This rests upon the authority of Jansenius, but is contradicted by the statement of Gregory of Tours that he was sent to Gaul in the time of Decius. The Acta of S. Martial, now held to be spurious, gave him a place among the seventy disciples. Cf. Cornel, a Lap. in Matt. xvii.

Note: This is found in Nicephorus and Symeon Metaphrastes. It originated probably in the name of Ignatius, Qtocpopos, being interpreted in a passive sense, “borne or carried by God,” rather than, as Ignatius explains it, “bearing God in his heart.”