At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3and said,
Last summer my family went camping for a few days in the Pigeon River National Forest. My wife hated it, I loved it. She spent her days trying to control the level of dirt and mess, and the children did their (our?) best to get as dirty and messy as possible. On the last night, sitting around the campfire, we saw how different a child's perspective is from that of an adult. Amy was commenting on how much dirt had gotten into the tent and how dirty the children's faces were. Our youngest boy, grinning from ear to ear with a dirt-caked face, said: "I love it, we're pretending to be poor". He could care less about fancy vacations in luxurious hotels, he was content to have fun in the dirt with mom and dad.
Jesus often uses word-pictures to capture our attention (a). The disciples are (perhaps) arguing about which one of them will be greatest in Jesus' kingdom. Perhaps it will be Peter, since he seems to be the spokesman for the gang. Or, perhaps it will be John. He was referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and seemed to be very close to Jesus. Of course James certainly thought himself a contender for the top position. Instead of answering them, Jesus gives them a word-picture of a little child. We do not know whether the child was a boy or girl (the Greek word used here is a neuter noun). Whether boy or girl, this small child was given the honor sought by the disciples. In Jesus' view, a little child is the best definition of what it means to be a truly great person.
Make no mistake, Jesus isn't referring to the child's supposed 'innocence' or 'purity'. Scripture does teach the doctrine of original sin (that we are born as sinners in need of a savior). Jesus is not talking about subjective moral qualities (goodness, purity) but rather objective physical and social status. Children are physically small and have a low status in society. In most cultures, they are to limit themselves to listening and obeying. They cannot vote, drive cars, run for political office or enter into legal contracts. A child cannot make a living or provide for themselves (let alone anyone else). A child, by definition as well as necessity, only receives. They receive protection, food, shelter, and love from a parental figure.
This is Jesus' ideal human. Such a person stops seeking greatness, power, and esteemed positions because they just want to be around Jesus. They don't care about what authority they have because they are only interested in listening to the real authority (Jesus).
Our youngest taught us something about what it means to be a child of God. Christianity isn't about greatness or prestige. It's about enjoying the presence of our loving Father.
(a) Many of the thoughts of this devotional are based on material taken from: Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28, Revised and Expanded Edition, (Eerdmans, 2004), pp 207-210
One should not be presenting an idea as if it were Biblical if they cannot cite one verse that would justify teaching that idea. But here you have done just that.
ReplyDeleteSadly most never take the time to subject the ideas that they are taught to Biblical scrutiny. Instead in direct violation of Ps. 118:8 they elect to put their confidence in something said by this-or-that man and then they proceed to reinterpret the words of scripture to fit the view of that non-Bible source.
Here we see that you have done this in regards to the John tradition that you promote above. You say of John "He was referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"" and yet the truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching that John was the anonymous disciple whom "Jesus loved" -- but in spite of this you like most will simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this man-made tradition. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made tradition is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he could not have been John.
Consider just one example -- the disconnect between the common assertion from promoters of this tradition that claims that the fourth gospel is "John's eyewitness testimony" and the FACTS presented to us in the plain text of scripture. Here is the question for those who promote this idea: Since you believe that the author IS presenting himself as an eyewitness do you not think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?
The Mount of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead - the key moments of John’s involvement in the ministry of Jesus – are ALL missing from the fourth gospel. Why? Could it be the author of the fourth gospel (the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved") was not an eyewitness to these events?
EVERY time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel. It is indeed hard to understand why this would be the case if the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John, but it is easy to understand why this is the case if John wasn’t this author.
While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. As always, I challenge those who promote this erroneous, man-made tradition to cite just one verse that would justify teaching this tradition? Forget all those NON-BIBLE sources (Ps. 118:8) -- Got scripture?
It's suprising what children can teach you. We think of them learning, but really, often times they teach us.
ReplyDelete:)
It seems you are getting really worked up over a most insignificant point of doctrine. One would be hard-pressed to find a more insignificant interpretational issue than this one, brother.
ReplyDeleteMy only response would be to hold you to your own criteria. If you are so clearly convinced it is NOT John, please provide scripture proving that assertion.
If you cannot, then drop the point.
Oddly, you assume higher critical assumptions on the one hand (e.g. John not being the author of the fourth gospel, lack of continuity between the synoptics and the 4th gospel, etc), even those these are "Non-Bible sources". Yet, you reject both ancient and modern scholarly opinion regarding the identity of "the disciple who Jesus loved" on the grounds of this opinion being a "non-Bible source".
Whether John is "the disciple who Jesus loved" really wasn't the point of my devotional. Let's say the identity of this person was really Peter. What the heck, let's even say it was Thomas. Who cares?