Openness, curiosity, wonder, joy; receiving the kingdom of God like a little child: Mark 10.
Merry Vole
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
Mark 10:15
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
(also Matthew 19 and Luke 18)
Our vicar preached on this passage a while back and said that children approach things with 'Openness, curiosity, wonder and joy' and that we can approach the things of God in the same way.
But I'm curious; what would the first hearers have made of this?
Jesus' words are quite strong; "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
How can we (especially if you're in your 7th decade like me) make our approach to the things of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, to be like that of a little child?
And what age child? -for children are changing and (normally) maturing quite quickly between the age of around 5 and around 12 -which I guess is what Jesus meant by 'little child'.
Can we say children are more sincere? less judgemental, more friendly than us adults? Less hypocritical and judgemental? Not inclined to fret about doctrine?!
And does Jesus' exhortation apply just to the initial entering of the Kingdom -and then we 'put away childish things' so that we become 'wise as serpents' as well as 'innocent as doves'?
Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
(also Matthew 19 and Luke 18)
Our vicar preached on this passage a while back and said that children approach things with 'Openness, curiosity, wonder and joy' and that we can approach the things of God in the same way.
But I'm curious; what would the first hearers have made of this?
Jesus' words are quite strong; "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
How can we (especially if you're in your 7th decade like me) make our approach to the things of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, to be like that of a little child?
And what age child? -for children are changing and (normally) maturing quite quickly between the age of around 5 and around 12 -which I guess is what Jesus meant by 'little child'.
Can we say children are more sincere? less judgemental, more friendly than us adults? Less hypocritical and judgemental? Not inclined to fret about doctrine?!
And does Jesus' exhortation apply just to the initial entering of the Kingdom -and then we 'put away childish things' so that we become 'wise as serpents' as well as 'innocent as doves'?
Comments
C. S. Lewis said:
https://youtu.be/TLpjyxcWF38?si=uFyjkl2q4sAfYA9o
❤️
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
@TurquoiseTastic , it seems that here it was not a 'babe in arms'. Maybe this was a different occasion and Jesus taught this on more than one occasion?
@Lamb Chopped , as far as 'dependency' in our salvation this obviously consistent with this teaching but I'm not sure this was the thrust of Jesus' words at the time?
What would the disciples and other hearers have thought at the time? I think they would have been a puzzled to say the least -which was maybe the intention!?
And @ChastMastr I'm afraid I can't parse what CS Lewis was getting at? Do you think he had this passage in mind?
And @Telford yes, I agree children's vivid imagination is probably a large part of how we can understand this teaching.
I don’t think he was aiming at this passage specifically, no. I’m not sure how to explain what he said other than the way that he said it. Is there something specific that isn’t connecting for you?
Well, he's talking about entering the kingdom of heaven, or what we more usually call "salvation." That is wholly dependent on the work of Christ--anyone who depends on his own good works, to use the theological vocabulary, is up a creek without a paddle. So yes, I think he was addressing this very thing.
The bit about welcoming a child being the same as welcoming him sort of underscores it. Everything depends on Christ, or (from another angle) on one's welcome (or lack of it) for Christ. Dependency again.
One reason people will not admit dependency is because to do so is to admit one's own inadequacy--which is the very definition of not being great in earthly terms. But Jesus, as usual, turns that upside down. For him, admitting one's own inadequacy and dependence--here, on Jesus--is the real key to greatness.
Will you pardon me if I have a stab at the Lewis question you asked?
Lewis' point is summarized in his last sentence: "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." He means that anyone who is terribly concerned to show the world that he is not a child, is in fact betraying his own childishness. By extrapolating we can say that anyone who is terribly concerned to assure everyone that he is not in fact dependent on anyone--that he is a "self-made man" and doesn't need a Savior of any sort--well, such a person is at least making it clear that in his secret heart of hearts, he is very worried about dependency issues--that he at least suspects he is dependent, and he hates the thought, and does his best to prevent anyone else from believing that of him.
The principle is a common one. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"--we all know that if someone goes around trumpeting how rich he is, or how smart, or how strong, or whatever, that's a pretty fair indicator that he has serious doubts about himself in that area. So Trump, with his obsession over "losers," makes it clear that he is desperately afraid of losing, and that in his deepest heart, he fears he may in fact be a "loser."
Turn to Biden, or Harris, or any reasonably adult human being, and you will not find the same obsession over losers. That's because they've made peace with the fact that you can't win all the time, and that sometimes things will go against you. And that in itself is a sign of a worthwhile human being--the very opposite of what Trump fears he might be.
Absolutely. But I think there is a difference between being childlike, a good thing, and childish, a not-so-good thing. Appreciating good things, even if they are not something adults are “supposed” to like (or even for that matter something a particular class is “supposed” to like (in the Screwtape letters, Lewis mentions a human defended from temptations to political ambition by a stronger taste for tripe and onions)), is a good thing. Throwing a tantrum is not a good thing (though perhaps it could let out stress of done in private—better that than a nervous breakdown…).
Children in the Biblical world had no stature until they had reached puberty, then they became adults--at around 13. There was no adolescence back in that day.
Wife and I have been watching The Chosen. What has struck us is how Jesus really interacts with the children in the series. He treats them as equals. This is something we do not do even today.
Yes, I know we are behind in the series. We like to take our time with it.
Presumably he was preaching on the incident as recounted in Matthew 18 where Jesus does use the term μικρῶν (18.6, 10), although mostly he uses παιδίον, which is the only term he uses in the similar accounts in Mark and Luke.
The only connection I can find with "strikable" is that Pais could also be used for "slave, servant".
Pau- is given as having two meanings. The first meaning is “few, little.” With that meaning, it’s the ultimate root of English words like pupil, poor, foal and few. It’s also the root of the Greek paidion, which means “child,” and from which English words like pediatric and pedagogy descend.
The second meaning of pau- is “to cut, strike or stamp.” With that meaning it’s the root of English words like amputate, repute, pave and pit. It is also listed as the root of the Greek paiein, which means “to strike,” and which is in turn the root of the English anapest.
Perhaps the two etymological meanings of pau- got conflated?
Paul didn't have the Gospels to refer to. I wish the Holy Spirit would have seen to that. Would make everything a lot clearer.
I mean, it's an easy thing to chuckle about, but it has serious implications. Paul's misogyny is in letters that a lot of scholars think are pseudepigraphic. It seems the Holy Spirit really should have pulled out those alleged forgeries, right? But here we are.
None of this has to do with misogyny. If you want to talk about that, maybe start a new thread?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.
Hostly Fin gently ripples
Yes, here we are in a Kerygmania thread about "receiving the Kingdom as little children".
"In what way, if any, does the Holy Spirit inspire Scripture" => new thread in Purgatory.
"Letters attributed to Paul are misogynistic" => new thread in Epiphanies
gentle hostly ripples subside
He said it meant that Jesus wants us to be meek, humble and trusting. But 'not like physical (sic) children'. Anyway, I thought this was consistent with Jesus's other teachings including, eg, the Beatitudes.
So I tend not to think that this is about virtues that small children demonstrate but rather about acknowledging that we are as dependent and lacking in full knowledge as small children.
I've been thinking about the 'spiritual maturity' thing due to recent challenges by @The_Riv to which I feel I responded inappropriately. We ended up 'talking past' each other to some extent.
During an online Bible study I attended this evening the presiding priest reminded us that in the Eastern Christian tradition, the Fall is seen more as a failure of Adam and Eve to 'mature' rather than a Fall from a great height, which is the more Augustinian view.
It is just as fatal in its consequences though.
It was observed that younger children tend not to blame others- as Adam and Eve did - or pretend things weren't their fault.
That tendency kicks in generally around 5 or 6, although it can be found to some extent in younger children.
As an aside, you can see how that plays into the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Innocence has to be pushed back and back to the moment of conception.
But that’s an aside ...
I would like to have a sensible conversation at some point about issues of individual and societal human development. I feel that The_Riv and I got off to a poor start on that one.
I'm also feeling a bit chastened after my recent descent into Hell where I feel I acted rather impulsively and impugned people's motives to some extent - particularly @Kendel. I didn't agree with her points but was unnecessarily personal and abrupt in the way I expressed that.
But yes, Merry Vole is right, we would all do well to strive after the simplicity of children in the way we deal with one another - as well, if we are believers, of exercising simple trust and faith.
Work in progress.
You did. Thanks for acknowledging it.
I'll think about whether the issues around 'spiritual maturity' that The_Riv and I had begun to address belong here or on a new thread. I rather think a new one but will need time to think it through.
I've found that when I post in haste I repent at leisure.
The answer to your question depends on a lot of assumptions, I think. How do we measure progress? We aren't putting kids up chimneys or down the mines - at least not here, but we create the conditions where kids go down the cobalt mines in the People's Republic of The Congo, as @Ruth reminded us.
A good while back I remember a Shipmate arguing that Christianity had effectively made itself redundant in Scandinavia as it had contributed to the development of a welfare state in those countries.
We could debate that.
For all our hagiographies, the Orthodox Tradition doesn't make out that Big S Saints were giants who were beyond reproach.
I'm sure that applies to other traditions too. I've heard Methodists acknowledge that John Wesley could be autocratic and Quakers suggest that George Fox may have had what we'd call 'neurodiversity' issues these days.
I think it was Gandhi who said that Christianity was a great idea but it was a shame nobody had tried it.
The simple answer I think is that we've got sold things better than our ancestors but not everything.
The situation is going to be mixed at any given sample point.
Before I dash off, though, maybe you meant this Ghandi quote: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”