Critics love to point out apparent contradictions in Scripture, and one of their favourites involves two statements Jesus made that seem to directly oppose each other:

• Mark 9:40: “For the one who is not against us is for us.”
• Matthew 12:30: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

At first glance, these appear to be logical opposites. How can someone who “is not against us” be “for us” while simultaneously, someone who “is not with me” be “against me”? Did Jesus contradict himself, or is there a deeper truth we’re missing?

 

THE SCENE IN MARK 9: MINISTRY IN JESUS’ NAME

In Mark 9, the apostle John approaches Jesus with a concern. He’s discovered someone casting out demons in Jesus’ name—and the person wasn’t part of their inner circle. “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us” (Mark 9:38).

John’s response reveals a common human tendency: we want to control who gets to participate in God’s work. The disciples had developed an “us versus them” mentality, assuming effective ministry could only happen within their approved group.

Jesus’ response is remarkable: “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:39-40).

Notice what Jesus emphasises here. The unknown exorcist was doing “mighty works” in Jesus’ name and achieving real results in spiritual warfare. He was advancing God’s kingdom, even though he wasn’t officially part of the apostolic band. In this context, Jesus teaches neutrality toward genuine kingdom work actually constitutes support.

This demonstrates God’s sovereignty in using various instruments for His purposes. As Calvin noted, God can work through unexpected channels, employing even those outside the visible church to accomplish His will through common grace.

 

THE SCENE IN MATTHEW 12: PERSONAL ALLEGIANCE TO CHRIST

Matthew 12 presents an entirely different scenario. Jesus has just cast out a demon, and the Pharisees—religious leaders who should have been celebrating this victory over evil—instead accuse Him of working through demonic power: “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Matthew 12:24).

Jesus responds with His famous “house divided” teaching, explaining that Satan cannot cast out Satan because a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Then He delivers the decisive statement: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30).

Here, Jesus isn’t addressing ministry cooperation but personal allegiance. The Pharisees weren’t neutral bystanders; they were actively opposing Him while claiming religious authority. In matters of ultimate loyalty and personal relationship with Christ, Jesus declares neutrality is impossible. There is no truly neutral ground when it comes to our fundamental orientation toward God. As the Westminster Confession teaches, we are either children of light or children of darkness—there’s no middle category in terms of our spiritual state.

 

FOR US VS AGAINST US: TWO SPHERES, TWO STANDARDS

The key to resolving this apparent contradiction lies in recognising Jesus was addressing two different spheres with two different criteria:

External Ministry Sphere (Mark 9): When it comes to kingdom work and ministry cooperation, if you’re not actively opposing what Christ is doing, you’re functionally supporting it. The standard here is practical alignment with God’s purposes.

Personal Allegiance Sphere (Matthew 12): When it comes to salvation and ultimate loyalty, if you’re not fully committed to Christ, you’re ultimately opposed to Him. The standard here is heart commitment and saving faith.

These aren’t contradictory—they’re complementary truths addressing different aspects of human relationship with God. Reformed theology has long distinguished between common grace (God’s general favour that enables even unbelievers to do good works) and saving grace (God’s special favour that brings salvation).

Calvin emphasised this distinction in his commentary on these passages. He noted God can use even unbelievers for kingdom purposes through common grace, though salvation still requires explicit faith and personal commitment through saving grace.

The Westminster Standards support this understanding by distinguishing between external church membership and true saving faith. Someone might cooperate with Christian causes or even do ministry work without possessing genuine saving faith—and vice versa.

 

FOR US VS AGAINST US: NO CONTRADICTION, ONLY COMPREHENSIVE TRUTH

Far from contradicting each other, Jesus’ two statements provide a comprehensive framework for understanding human relationship with God. They teach us to be generous in recognising God’s work while remaining clear about the necessity of personal faith.

God sovereignly uses various instruments to accomplish His purposes, yet salvation requires definitive personal commitment to Christ. We can celebrate kingdom work wherever we find it while never losing sight of the gospel’s exclusive claims.

Jesus didn’t contradict Himself—He gave us wisdom for navigating the complexities of ministry, cooperation, and witness in a fallen world. The apparent contradiction dissolves when we recognize the different spheres He was addressing, leaving us with a richer, more nuanced understanding of how to engage both the church and the world.

 

FOR US VS AGAINST US: RELATED FAQs

What do contemporary Reformed scholars say about the apparent contradiction in Jesus’ statements? John MacArthur emphasises these passages address different relationships entirely—Mark 9 deals with ministry cooperation while Matthew 12 addresses personal salvation. RC Sproul argued the key is understanding the “us” in each context: in Mark, it’s the apostolic mission; in Matthew, it’s Christ Himself as the ultimate authority. DA Carson notes both statements can be logically true when applied to their proper spheres, demonstrating Jesus’ wisdom in addressing different audiences with appropriate principles.

• Are there similar “contradictory” pairs of verses elsewhere in Scripture that follow this same pattern? Yes, Scripture contains several examples of seemingly opposite principles that address different contexts. For instance, Proverbs 26:4-5 says both “Answer not a fool according to his folly” and “Answer a fool according to his folly”—but verse 4 warns against becoming like the fool, while verse 5 instructs us to expose his foolishness. Similarly, Paul says he became “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22) yet also warned against compromising the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). These apparent contradictions actually demonstrate the Bible’s sophisticated approach to different situations requiring different responses.
• How do we know when to apply the Mark 9:40 principle versus the Matthew 12:30 principle in real-life situations? The key is identifying whether we’re dealing with external cooperation or internal spiritual commitment. Apply Mark 9:40 when evaluating ministry partnerships, cultural alliances, or functional cooperation on shared goals—here, we look for fruit and alignment with biblical values. Apply Matthew 12:30 when addressing matters of salvation, discipleship, or ultimate spiritual allegiance—here, we demand clear personal commitment to Christ.

Did the early church fathers recognise this distinction, or is this a later Reformed development? Early church fathers like Augustine and Chrysostom recognised similar distinctions, though they didn’t always use the same terminology. Augustine’s concept of the “invisible church” versus the “visible church” parallels this thinking—recognising that God’s work can extend beyond official church boundaries while salvation remains exclusive to those truly united to Christ. However, the systematic development of common grace versus saving grace distinctions reached fuller expression during the Reformation, particularly in Calvin’s theology and later in Reformed scholasticism.

• How do Arminian and other non-Reformed traditions interpret these seemingly contradictory verses? Most Arminian scholars agree with the contextual solution but emphasise different aspects. They typically focus more on human free will in choosing to be “for” or “against” Christ rather than God’s sovereignty in using various instruments. Some Arminians stress the Mark 9 passage shows God’s desire for inclusivity, while Matthew 12 demonstrates human responsibility to choose Christ. However, most evangelical traditions across theological lines accept the basic contextual resolution, though they may differ on the underlying theological implications about grace and human agency.
• What about the parallel passages in Luke 9:50 and Luke 11:23—do they add any additional insights? Luke 9:50 closely parallels Mark 9:40 but adds the detail that the disciples “forbade” the unknown exorcist, emphasising their attempt to control ministry. Luke 11:23 parallels Matthew 12:30 but places it immediately after the “house divided” teaching, strengthening the context of ultimate spiritual warfare. These parallel accounts confirm Jesus deliberately used these principles in their specific contexts, and Luke’s careful recording suggests he recognised their importance. The slight variations in wording actually support the contextual interpretation rather than suggesting confusion or contradiction.

Does this interpretation have implications for how we understand biblical inerrancy and the reliability of Gospel accounts? This interpretation actually strengthens the case for biblical reliability by showing how apparent contradictions dissolve under careful exegesis. Rather than suggesting the Gospel writers carelessly recorded contradictory sayings, it demonstrates their precision in preserving Jesus’ teachings in their proper contexts. The fact that both statements are preserved without editorial harmonisation shows the evangelists’ commitment to accuracy over artificial consistency. This pattern throughout Scripture—where apparent difficulties yield deeper truths under examination—supports the doctrine of inerrancy by showing that the Bible’s complexity reflects divine wisdom rather than human error.

 

FOR US VS AGAINST US: OUR RELATED POSTS

• ‘The Last Will be First’: How Christ’s Kingdom Economy Works
• The Kenosis: What Does It Mean that Jesus Emptied Himself?
• Washing of Feet: Are We To Apply John 13:14 Literally?
• Discipleship: What Does it Mean to Deny Ourselves and Take Up Our Cross Daily?