�鶹��ý

The presence of children in biblical narratives has garnered some attention by scholars and readers of the text. Julie Faith Parker notes that biblical stories “are certainly not by children, nor explicitly for children,” and “as we search the text for the child characters and scrutinize their lives through thick lenses of time, language, and cultural differences, we cannot help but see dimly. Yet, it is still worthwhile to look.”[1] There is value in examining, studying, and applying lessons from the stories of children in the Bible. Careful readers may find that not all stories can be read across the canonical boundaries without some accounting for their use and place within the text. Joseph Grassi noted that within the Hebrew Bible, children represent God’s gifts, covenant, and activity. In the New Testament, however, “children are principally a model or image for the believer to emulate.”[2] Jonathan Schofer suggested that while “late ancient Christian” writers focused more extensively on the theological and moral concerns surrounding children in the New Testament, such concerns were far less prominent in Jewish sources. Unpacking why this is the case may be fruitful for future scholars and readers of the Bible.[3] Even within the text of the New Testament, individual writers of the Gospels tend to use the presence of children in various ways that are true to other aspects of those books while not entirely consistent with others.[4] How might Latter-day Saints study these biblical episodes and others from Restoration scripture where children are present, and what might they learn in the process?

Of the scriptural passages in the New Testament that include children as part of the context, there are two episodes where Jesus Christ personally interacts with a little child to teach eternal truths. The first episode is when Jesus addresses the question of his apostles regarding who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (see Matthew 18:1–5; Mark 9:33–37; Luke 9:46–48). The second episode involves people bringing little children to Jesus to be blessed by him, and his disciples rebuke the people who are doing this (see Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17). These two events have led to much interpretive art, reflection, and commentary in Christian tradition.

Modern readers of scripture—and Latter-day Saints are no exception here—are often inclined to eisegesis (interpreting a text by reading one’s own ideas into it). While this imbues a text with meaning relevant to the reader’s time and context, it overlooks crucial historical context and traditional interpretations (exegesis). Readers might find their relationship to the text deepened and increase their capacity to mine the treasure of collected wisdom within their tradition if they broaden their approach include questions such as, “What was in the minds of the earliest hearers or readers of this text? What did they consider a child to be? Would a Jewish audience understand what it meant to be a child in ways that differed from the perception of a Roman or Greek audience?”[5] Seeking to understand what Jesus meant when he said “become like a little child” puts readers in a position to learn the importance of this command. We contend that the crux of understanding this principle of becoming a little child in order to enter into the kingdom of God is based on the significance of Jesus’s intentional and purposeful interaction with little children.

This chapter presents a detailed study of these two episodes employing the following strategies: a childist framework and interpretation; comparison of the recorded accounts of these episodes in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; consideration of the Greek words used for little children; review of historical and anthropological research regarding how little children were viewed in Greco-Roman and Jewish households; and an integration of Restoration scripture. A framework that has recently developed to explore children in the biblical narrative is a childist[6] (child-centered) perspective or interpretation, which notices and appreciates the role of children as secondary but often illustrative participants in biblical narratives, rather than simply relegating their place to that of innocent observer or unimportant contextual detail. Drawing from the implications and insights of childist research, we will discuss new, more informed readings of the episodes where Jesus intentionally interacted with or spoke about little children.We hope to show why the inclusion of little children in these passages serves a central rather than secondary function within the narrative and can strengthen Latter-day Saint readings of scripture.

Jesus Christ and Children in the Bible: A Childist Perspective

Children have generally been overlooked in biblical scholarship, though there have been some recent developments to address this oversight.[7] Among Hebrew Bible scholars, for example, increasing emphasis is being placed on texts where “children function as characters in the narratives and serve as metaphors, abstractions, symbols, and illustrations.”[8] Although children were clearly present during ancient times, “children, even more so than women, rarely have a voice in the biblical text. Yet this need not deter one from uncovering them. . . . Simply because a voice is silent does not mean that the voice has nothing to say.”[9]

To illustrate the passive yet important role that children often play within the text, we might consider an example from the Old Testament. Elijah interacts with a child in a way that mirrors the New Testament accounts examined in this article. According to 1 Kings 17:9, Elijah went to Zarephath, where he was cared for by a widow. After the widow’s household experienced a miraculous provision of food for many days, her son became quite ill and died. Although Elijah had already performed a miracle in the woman’s house (the filled pantry), it was only after Elijah performed yet another miracle with her son that she was able to proclaim, “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth” (1 Kings 17:24). The blessing of recovering the child from death led the woman to accept Elijah as more than an ordinary visitor but as a righteous person. The story of Elijah and the widow provides an example of how a child can be a central figure in a biblical story without having essential action. We can recognize important roles and hear voices that are often overlooked by drawing upon the contributions of feminist and childist scholarship. Such efforts have expanded readers’ awareness of a greater inclusivity and sense of belonging for groups that may often feel marginalized or silenced because of the ways that a particular biblical text may sound given its prominent male composition.[10]

Acknowledging how the world was experienced by children during the time of Jesus can illuminate and broaden our understanding of Jesus’s teachings while interacting with and referring to children. Garroway argues that in the work of some biblical scholars, children have largely been viewed as secondary, narrowly by their relationship to parents and families.[11] However, a childist approach looks for and considers the child as an intentional character in the narrative, focusing on the “agency and action of children and youth in the biblical text, instead of seeing them primarily as passive, victimized, or marginalized.”[12] As Elkins and Parker suggest, the “first step of childist interpretation is simply to read against the grain of the text to notice child characters,” recognizing that given the vantage of the biblical writers, these will be brief, yet potentially fruitful readings of the text.[13] Carefully examining the presence of children in narratives opens further understanding to biblical teachings, with significant implications for understanding the meaning of the text.[14]

Biblical references to children encompass a broad age range, from infant all the way through adolescence. Cultural and social patterns determine when one moves out of childhood and these may vary based on location, historical period, and more.[15] Today scholars of human and child development place children in various categories based on ages and stages (i.e., infancy, toddlerhood, preschooler, early and late elementary, and early, mid, and late adolescence). Anthropological work that seeks to understand children and families during the time of Jesus indicates that Jewish and Greco-Roman childhood did not share these specific modern categories of ages, but it is clear that “childhood was both a conceptual and a social reality in the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds.”[16]

To locate children in the text, a childist approach to biblical narratives will begin “by understanding first what ‘child’ means in the biblical context,”[17] which includes understanding who is considered a child anciently. Given that “views of who children were in the biblical world are very different from our own conceptions of children,”[18] modern readers need to understand the specific context of pericopes involving children before we explore applications of those stories. Although there is something universal about children that crosses over culture and time—children are immature humans—what makes someone a child varies significantly across culture. For the purposes of this chapter, we consider the intersection of biology and culture in answering the question, Who is a child in the New Testament world?[19]

The Child Development Lens

In general, child development can be categorized into multiple stages after birth: infancy, early and late childhood, and early and late adolescence. Following adolescence, one enters the stages of adulthood. An aspect of anthropological research is to draw on the biological processes of humans, such as bone ossification, dentition, and changes in body proportions. For example, the density and makeup of bones vary across infant, child, and adolescent development. Biology acknowledges some of the universal characteristics in human development. In terms of a cultural lens, a child can include an infant up through an older adolescent. Universally, the term “children” refers to those who are dependent on adults. However, “a study of any culture, ancient or modern, will quickly point out that there are multiple kinds of ages and stages in individuals who have not reached maturity.”[20] While biology can give some clear stages of physical or biological growth, the meaning and timing of talking, walking, and other physical and socioemotional skills varies by culture and individual. This variability in life stages applied anciently as “most cultures in the biblical world did not fixate on chronological age as we do today. Instead, social ages were used, and references to an individual’s age often pertained to their relationship to other members of their society.”[21] In other words, the transition from childhood anciently had much to do with when one became less dependent on those around them and increased in ability to provide for and contribute to the familial and social networks and circumstances they were part of (i.e., work, war, conception, marriage, and so forth). Thus, “the category of ‘child’ is both a biological given and a social construct.”[22]

On the basis of biological and cultural meanings of a “child” in biblical times, dependency and puberty (ability to conceive a child) were common indicators of who was a child among the Greco-Roman and Jewish people. Garroway recommends using the following terms based on chronological and social ages:[23]

Table 1. Chronological and social ages

By applying these terms, we can get a better idea of who are considered children and where to find them in the New Testament. The Synoptic Gospel accounts of Jesus intentionally interacting with children suggest that he involved and referred to little children. A little child during the time of Jesus could have been either an infant (0–2 years) or a young child (3–6), either of which would have been significantly dependent upon its caregiver, just beginning to develop and learn.[24] An older child (7–13 years) would be less dependent on the caregiver, able to fend for himself or herself, and able to contribute to providing for the needs of others.

Scholars have pointed out that although these social ages seem to fit nicely with both Greco-Roman and Jewish households during this time, it is important to take into account social classes as well as gender. The households of the New Testament world reflected the extended paternal pattern of family dwellings, the ��ê��ʾ���� (father’s house). Households were broad, familial networks. Families often lived among relatives, frequently with extended families residing in common homes or in close proximity.[25] The home was a site of activity, including agriculture and husbandry, reflective of what we today might think of as a small cooperative. The role of children within these networks was complicated, given the extreme infant mortality rates. For some families, abandonment of children (especially the young and dependent) was a regular occurrence, leaving them for dead or to be taken in by others in servitude.[26]

The Terms Used for Little Children

Further insight into Jesus’s use of children as examples can be gleaned from the Greek terms used in the Synoptic Gospels. In most instances, the singular paidion or its plural paidia are used in these verses (see Matthew 18:2–5, 19:13–14; Mark 9:36–37; 10:13–15; Luke 9:47–48). This is the diminutive of pais, the general word for “child,” and while it often refers to a younger child, either male or female, it also referred to a slave of any age. Whereas pais could be used of a son or daughter up to the age of twenty,[27] paidion referred to a growing child up to the age of seven.[28] Various English translations of the Bible vary between using “child/children” or “little child/little children,” with “little child” and “little children” being the predominant rendering.[29] Uniquely, in another episode in which people bring “infants” to Jesus (Luke 18:15), the Lucan text uses the plural ��������ŧ, which refers to babes in arms.[30] Finally, the plural ��ŧ�辱�Ǿ�, also referring to infants, occurs at Luke 10:21 and Matthew 21:16.[31] Both these terms referring to infants suggest a kind of pure innocence; they serve as prime examples of righteousness. The consistent Greek reference in these passages to infants or to little or young children, as opposed to older youth or just children in general, indicates that in the message of Jesus, the essential characteristics of children as humble, poor, and dependent seem intrinsically connected to the definition of righteousness.

Synoptic Comparative Analysis of Scriptural Episodes

Each of these episodes involving the Savior and little children appears in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In comparing the similarities and differences between the three Gospels, it is common to begin with the Gospel of Mark as it has been well established that this was written first and that the Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a source for their own writings, adding or excluding details based on the message they are wanting to convey to their audiences.[32] Many insights can be gained by comparing the Synoptic accounts of various episodes, including these two episodes of Jesus with little children. Incorporating childist perspectives further enhances the comparative analysis of these two episodes. Though we often overlook them, children were part of the masses and crowds that followed and listened to the teachings of Jesus. Because conversations were typically among adults, in scriptural narratives children become silent followers, possessed, or dead.

Part of the reason for this reality is that the New Testament text bears little room for children to possess an active participatory role. In the episodes examined below, Jesus incorporated children already present with very little effort. While in Galilee, the disciples began asking questions of the Savior, and his immediate response was to call upon a child who was nearby or among them. Mark 10 suggests that “the people” came again to Jesus, Luke 9 suggests a multitude of thousands, most assuredly some of whom were children. In Matthew 19, the chapter opens with “great multitudes followed him,” and given the context of verses 3–7, this seems to be a congregation of men and women and children. The presence and the use of children in these settings does more than just provide an object of distinction for those hearing Jesus; it opens up the space for profound teaching and learning because of who they were and their relationship to the audience.

Episode 1: greatest in the kingdom

One of the most significant themes in the Gospels is the command for Jesus’s hearers and followers to become like small children. Jesus “took a child” (Mark 9:36), or, in the Matthean expansion of Mark, Jesus “called a little child unto him” (Matthew 18:2), instructed his audience be like this child, and told them to receive this child. Drawing on a childist perspective described above, Jesus’s inclusion of a little child, one who is dependent on a caregiver, is essential to the meaning of his teachings. Thomas A. Wayment acknowledges, “Modern conceptions of being like a child are different from ancient ones. Children were powerless, without a voice in social settings, meek and lowly, and they were viewed as simple.”[33] The linguistic and social connections between “children” and “slaves”[34] in the New Testament period further suggests that there was great significance in Jesus’s effort to physically place a little child among adult followers in his company.

To further establish the childist interpretation of this episode of Jesus taking and placing a little child amid the disciples, it is important to understand what took place leading up to Jesus addressing their question of “who should be the greatest” (Mark 9:34). Jesus gives the first two of his three passion predictions (Mark 8:31; Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22), followed by Peter, James, and John accompanying him on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:2–10; Matthew 17:1–9; Luke 9:28–36). In each case, the disciples fail to understand the meaning of Jesus’s teachings that “the Son of man must suffer many things” (Mark 8:31), and “the Son of man [would be] risen from the dead” (Mark 9:9). After Jesus for a second time predicts the passion, to be delivered up, killed, and rise the third day, the disciples “understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him” (Mark 9:31–32; compare Matthew 17:22–23; Luke 9:43–45).[35] Discussion and possible disputation about Jesus’s foretelling of his death and other events seems to have continued.

According to the Mark and Luke accounts, when Jesus asks the disciples what they had been discussing, they say they had been arguing about who was greatest among them (see Mark 9:33–34; parallels Luke 9:46). Matthew doesn’t acknowledge the contention and simply states that they approached Jesus and openly asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” (Matthew 18:1). See table 2 for a comparison of how the Synoptic Gospels described this episode.

Table 2. Synoptic comparison of Jesus teaching about the greatest in the kingdom

This table reflects and draws from similar Synoptic comparisons. For example, see Kurt Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 14th ed. (Freiburg, Germany: German Bible Society, 1971), 158–59.

Although it is not clear what provoked this question of who is the greatest, in light of the events leading up to this, perhaps the disciples were wondering, even arguing, about their place or status as leaders in the kingdom of God that Jesus preached. The disciples do not yet seem to have understood how the distressing suffering, death, and resurrection of the Master fit in to his Messianic mission (Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45). They likely expected him to take the throne of David and establish a political kingdom. The disciples were possibly arguing about their place in the hierarchal structure of this earthly kingdom. Given that only Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus on the mountain, one can imagine how this too may have contributed to the discussion and the disciples’ reluctancy to divulge their jealous ambitions to Jesus.[36]

The Synoptic accounts agree that there was confusion and even contention about “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” The confusion wasn’t just about who was to be next in line to Jesus’s earthly reign but also included about what was meant by the kingdom that Jesus was proclaiming. In response, according to Mark’s account, Jesus gathered the twelve and first explained what it meant to be a leader: “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:35; see also Luke 9:48). Jesus would teach further on this principle (see Matthew 20:20–28; Mark 10:35–45); he emphasized the principle that those who are called to lead are to serve, not that leaders are to be served (compare Mark 10:42–45). The disciples, like us today, were human characters with selfish desires at times. Their search for meaning in the word “greatest” may reflect efforts to evaluate their own position among the others.

Building upon this principle to be a servant and intending to teach his apostles about the kingdom of heaven, Jesus physically placed a child among them and proclaimed, “Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me” (Mark 9:36–37; Matthew 18:2, 5; Luke 9:47–48). Matthew added to Mark’s account, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3–4). Then all three accounts similarly quote Jesus as saying, “Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosever shall receive me, receiveth not me” (Mark 9:37; Matthew 18:5; Luke 9:48), with Mark’s and Luke’s account adding, “And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” This connection of God the Father to God the Son to the hearer of his words extends all the way down to the little child in their midst.

The reference of taking and receiving a child to teach about greatness and his kingdom is nearly identical across the Synoptic accounts. However, although some biblical translations indicate that Jesus was referring to a “child” or “children,” an examination of the Greek text makes it clear that he took a little child (paidion) or little children (paidia). What is the significance of Jesus referring to a little child or children in understanding his teachings? To address this, the reader must move beyond viewing the reference of a child as secondary or an insignificant context to scriptural text. Together with the context that led up to this episode and a childist interpretation that considers a little child as a central or intentional figure in this episode, a more complete understanding of the story and subsequent exegesis or interpretation can be explored.

Frequently, commentaries addressing this episode emphasize the importance of taking on the nature or childlike characteristics in order to enter the kingdom of God. However, informed by the significance of Jesus taking a little child, alternative interpretations emphasize the process of becoming like a little child who is powerless, fully dependent on a caregiver, and having nothing to offer as payment to the caregiver. For example, Catholic biblical commentators John Donahue and Daniel Harrington suggest that paidion in the first-century context first and foremost represented one who lacked social status. As a “nonperson,” they were “totally dependent on others for nurture and protection, and of course one could not expect to gain anything either socially or materially from kindness to a child. By placing the child in midst of his circle of disciples Jesus . . . displays his acceptance of the child (who is a social nonentity) as worthy of respect and care.”[37] Julie M. Smith argued that Jesus articulated his invitation to offer love and hospitality through the example of “welcoming and receiving the child.”[38] In addition to the idea of children as nonpersons, through another lens, children symbolize the need and capacity for knowledge. Matthew 18:2, for example, is a passage looked to as illustrative of teachability.[39] The paradox of Jesus’s reference and interaction with children is that they were owed no such respect, yet they became the objects of his kindly adoration and care. The connections made by Restoration scripture seems to bolster this interpretation and plays heavily upon not only the childlike qualities of teachability and humility but also childlike reliance and dependence on Christ in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Intriguingly, Restoration scripture provides both explicit and implicit reference to becoming as a little child and entering or receiving the kingdom of heaven, where the command to become as a little child is elevated in its doctrinal significance as being central to Christ’s saving doctrine, the only means by which eternal life is obtained. The most explicit reference is by Christ himself when he appeared to the Nephites following his resurrection. Following the Father’s introduction of his Beloved Son and the resurrected Christ’s personal interaction with the people, he taught his doctrine—to repent, to believe in him, and to be baptized by water and the Holy Ghost—that allows one to receive or inherit the kingdom of God (see 3 Nephi 11:32–33). By comparing this episode with the New Testament episodes examined above, one can see Jesus echoing his teachings captured in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but this Nephite account may clarify the intended meaning. For example, the Nephite teaching of “whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also” aligns with his New Testament teachings in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, “whoso shall receive me receiveth him that sent me” (Luke 9:48; Mark 9:37). Moreover, Jesus twice gives the Nephites the corresponding teaching on becoming a little child and entering the kingdom of God.

Table 3. Comparison of New Testament and Book of Mormon references to little children and the kingdom of God

Matthew’s unique addition “to be converted and become as little children” as a preliminary condition to enter the kingdom of heaven introduces the concept of “conversion” (Matthew 18:3). The Greek word is ���ٰ������ŧ�ٱ�, meaning to always be engaged in, to turn, turn around, reverse, return, or change.[40] Being converted as a little child emphasizes the turning or returning to (or engaging in such qualities of) the innocent and dependent state of a little child, who must rely completely on the caregiver for everything. Nephi’s insightful question and profound teaching of living the doctrine of Christ adds to the understanding of what it means to become as a little child: “And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” (2 Nephi 31:19; emphasis added).

Thus, when scriptural, prophetic, or scholarly teachings emphasize living the doctrine of Christ and all that it encompasses, Christ has made it clear in the old world (Jerusalem) and new world (Americas) that living and experiencing the doctrine of Christ must include the becoming as a little child. Serious consideration of the ancient status of little children, together with Restoration scripture, emphasizes that our receving of the kingdom of God is fully dependent on our faithful reliance on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ to enter the kingdom of heaven, just as a little child or infant relies on a cargiver for life, wholly dependent and reliant on the caregiver for survival. King Benjamin explains, “And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins. . . . And the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:16, 18; emphasis added).

Becoming as a child, receiving the kingdom of heaven as a little child, is recognizing our whole reliance on Christ for our salvation, like a little child who is completely reliant on and trusting in their caregiver, with nothing to offer in return. Drawing from Restoration scriptures, Daniel Becerra effectively articulates the interrelated principles of conversion and becoming as a central message of the Book of Mormon:

A fundamental assumption of all moral discourse in the Book of Mormon is that God’s creation of humankind did not end in Eden. Rather, God continually forms his disciples throughout the course of their lives. This is evident in the numerous statements in which Mormon speaks of spiritually maturing persons as becoming new creatures, as children of God, as being born again, as experiencing a mighty change of heart, and as receiving God’s image in their countenance (e.g., Mosiah 27:25–26; Alma 5:14, 26, 49; 7:14). Such passages suggest that one hallmark of Christian discipleship is change: the persistent reorientation of the self toward God. The disciple, in other words, must master the art of becoming.[41]

A childist-comparative approach allows us to see more clearly that the command to become as a little child to enter or inherit the kingdom of God is central to the doctrine of Christ.[42]

Episode 2: Jesus blesses the little children

In this second episode of Jesus’s intentional interaction with little children (Mark 10:13–16; parallels Matt 19:13–15; Luke 18:15–27), he is making his way to Jerusalem before his triumphal entry, passing through many towns in the Perean and Judean regions. All three of the Synoptic Gospels describe how people brought either their little children, or in Luke’s case their infants, to Jesus. (See table 4 for a comparison of how the Synoptic Gospels described this episode.) Additionally, all three indicate that the intent of the people was for Jesus to touch, hold, and lay hands upon them to bless them. Terryl Givens suggests that this was a familiar Jewish gesture: “Abundant precedent for the blessing of children was found in the Hebrew Bible and it was—and remains—an important Jewish practice.”[43]

Table 4: Synoptic comparison of Jesus blessing the little children

This table reflects and draws from similar Synoptic comparisons. For example, see Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 216–17.

As with the first episode described earlier, Jesus intentionally refers to and interacts with little children (or even infants) to instruct as well as clarify the meaning of his teachings directed to his followers. In this particular episode, however, Jesus’s disciples rebuked or forbade the people from bringing their little children to him. According to Mark’s account, Jesus was displeased with the disciples for doing this (see Mark 10:14). In each of the Gospels the author records Jesus’s admonition to “suffer [let, allow] the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not” (Mark 10:14; parallels Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16). Jesus emphasizes that “for of such is the kingdom of God” in all three Synoptic accounts, reinforcing the idea we saw in Matthew 18:3–4, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Now in this second episode, both Mark and Luke refer to Jesus teaching that those who do not “receive the kingdom of God as a little child” will not be able to enter his kingdom (Mark 10:15; parallel Luke 18:17). This, too, resembles Matthew’s earlier statement. Matthew and Mark then relate that before departing this scene, Jesus placed his hands upon the little children and blessed them (see Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16).

Conclusion

By using a childist approach to carefully examine these two episodes of Christ intentionally interacting with little children, we are able to appreciate additional meaning regarding the salvific truth of needing to become like a little child. As addressed above, the focus on a little child has significant implications regarding the meaning and application of what Jesus is teaching about human powerlessness and the crucial need to “rely wholly” upon God and the merits of Christ for salvation.

This added meaning can inform our reading of other passages where the Savior teaches about entering the kingdom of heaven and what one must experience to be saved. For example, although John does not record either of these events with children, it seems he does preserve the same truth as he recounts the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5; emphasis added). Given the expanded understanding of becoming as a little child from restoration scripture, the image of being "born again" evokes the idea of becoming once again like a little child, and may have called to mind (for Gospel readers) the other episodes where Jesus had taught about becoming like little children.

In summary, by examining Gospel accounts of Jesus’s teachings about little children, applying the insights of childist interpretation, and integrating findings with Restoration scripture, our understanding of the meaning and doctrinal significance of becoming as little children is deepened. This is especially important in relation to inheriting the kingdom of heaven and participating in the household of God through living the doctrine of Christ. Further, this deepened understanding helps us recognize our absolute dependence upon God as the source of all truth and upon Jesus as the way back to God as we strive to become as a little child.

Notes

[1] Julie Faith Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle, BJS 355 (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2013), 39.

[2] Joseph A. Grassi, “Child, Children,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 964.

[3] Jonathan Schofer, “The Different Life Stages: From Childhood to Old Age,” in Catherine Hezser, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 340. Schofer also suggested that it might be useful to consider why this interest in the theological and ethical in one tradition developed but not as extensively in another. This is likely not the place to do so, but such a consideration is certainly a useful question to keep in mind.

[4] Grassi, “Child, Children,” 905–7. Grassi gives each Gospel brief consideration with regard to the way in which the author discussed or included children. Interestingly, Grassi calls Luke the “gospel of little children.”

[5] Cornelia B. Horn and John W. Martens, “Let the Little Children Come to Me”: Childhood and Children in Early Christianity (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 1.

[6] The term “childist” was suggested by Julie Parker as a particular methodological approach to the study of children in the biblical narrative. More recently, this term has been broadened to describe a broader set of disciplinary and methodological approaches. For this history, see Kathleen Gallagher Elkins and Julie Faith Parker, “Children in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 422–33. Julie Parker’s Valuable and Vulnerable has a substantial bibliography for scholarship on childist approaches and the development of the field.

[7] It is important to recognize that the approach we are employing in this paper has developed variously in the biblical field generally and New Testament studies specifically. Each field, while employing similar methods, also has its own scholarly genesis, though some do try to bring the approach to both parts of the Christian canon. An example of this dual application to Biblical and New Testament pericope’s is the treatment of 2 Kings 5:1–14 and Mark 6:17–29 in Kathleen G. Elkins and Julie Parker, “Children in the Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” in The Oxford Handbook to Biblical Narrative, ed. Danna Fewell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 426–29. For a New Testament–specific study, see Horn and Martens, Childhood and Children in Early Christianity.

[8] Julie Faith Parker, “Children in the Hebrew Bible,” Currents in Bible Research 17, no. 2 (2019): 130.

[9] Kristene Henriksen Garroway, “Methodology: Who Is a Child and Where Do We Find Children in the Ancient Near East?,” T&T Clark Handbook of Children in the Bible and the Biblical World, ed. Sharon Betsworth and Julie Faith Parker (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 79.

[10] Reidar Aasgaard, “History of Research on Children in the Bible and the Biblical World: Past Development, Present State—and Future Potential,” T&T Clark Handbook of Children in the Bible and the Biblical World, ed. Sharon Betsworth and Julie Faith Parker (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 36.

[11] Kristine Henrickson Garroway, Growing Up in Ancient Israel: Children in Material Culture and Biblical Texts (Atlanta: SBL, 2018), 1.

[12] Elkins and Parker, “Children in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” 425.

[13] Elkins and Parker, “Children in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” 425.

[14] Elkins and Parker, “Children in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” 422–33.

[15] Horn and Martens, “Let the Little Children Come to Me,” 2–4.

[16] Horn and Martens, “Let the Little Children Come to Me,” 7.

[17] Garroway, “Methodology,” 67.

[18] Garroway, “Methodology,” 68.

[19] See Garroway, “Methodology,” 68–74.

[20] Garroway, “Methodology,” 71.

[21] Garroway, “Methodology,” 71.

[22] Garroway, “Methodology,” 72.

[23] Garroway, “Methodology,” 74.

[24] The references for Matthew 18 in Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament NRSV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 33n18.1–5 notes that “children represent those without power and who are dependent upon others.”

[25] Joseph H. Hellerman, The Ancient Church as Family (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 27–58. Hellerman argues that these were very often patrilocal and patrilineal kinship groups.

[26] Mark D. Ellison, “Family, Marriage, and Celibacy in the New Testament,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 537. Some Talmudic references suggest, potentially at least, for this to have been equally true among Jews and Christians in the first centuries of Christianity. See Yebamot 49a, The Babylonian Talmud, vol. 8, ed. Jacob Neusner (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011), 249.

[27] Walter Bauer, “pais,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker, trans. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 750–51.

[28] Bauer, “paidion,” in A Greek-English Lexicon, 749; Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 5: 637–39.

[29] King James Version, English Revised and American Revised Versions, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Thomas A. Wayment, The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-Day Saints (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019).

[30] Bauer, “brephos,” A Greek-English Lexicon, 183–84.

[31] Bauer, “nēpios,” A Greek-English Lexicon, 671; Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4:920, 922.

[32] Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: Sheffield, 2001), 16–24.

[33] Thomas A. Wayment, The New Testament, 87.

[34] Elkins and Parker, “Children in Biblical Narrative and Childist Interpretation,” 424. The authors here draw this parallel through Matthew 2:16 and Luke 7:1–10.

[35] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 28 (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 777.

[36] Many commentaries and sermons have addressed what led to the apostles’ question of who is the greatest among them. For example, eighteenth-century theologian and biblical scholar John Gill surmises that regarding this question of which should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven as in the kingdom of the Messiah, which the apostles assumed it to be a temporal kingdom, “the dispute was not about degrees in glory, nor in grace; nor who should be the greatest apostle and preacher of the Gospel; but who should be prime minister to the king Messiah, when he should set up his monarchy in all its grandeur and glory.” See John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 1 (London, 1809), 588.

[37] John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville, MN, 2002), 285.

[38] Julie M. Smith, The Gospel according to Mark, BYU New Testament Commentary (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2018), 537.

[39] Leland Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, eds., Dictionary of the Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 141

[40] Bauer, “strephō,” in A Greek-English Lexicon, 948–49.

[41] Daniel Becerra, 3–4 Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020) 44.

[42] This will be discussed further in a future article by the authors. For example, Alma’s teachings regarding one inheriting the kingdom of God in Mosiah 27 and Alma 5, 7, and 9 are greatly enhanced when applying a childist interpretation of conversion and the doctrine of Christ. Although there is no explicit reference to “becoming as a little child” by Alma, given the expanded meaning developed in this chapter, one can discern additional implied references to this teaching. Referencing his own conversion Alma proclaims that through repenting of his sins and having been redeemed of the Lord, he was born of the Spirit. He then quotes the Lord teaching that all “must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; and thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God” (Mosiah 27:25–26; emphasis added). Being born again, changed, becoming a new creature, and so forth, take on unique meaning when studied through the lens of becoming a little child and receiving the kingdom of heaven as a little child.

[43] Terryl Givens, Feeding the Flock (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 208–9. Before Jews today pray Kiddush at the ushering in of Sabbath, many parents place their hands on the head of the children and say, “May God make you like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah,” or, “May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.” This act recalls the blessing by Jacob of his grandsons (Genesis 48:20). This blessing connects the children of Israel to the great figures of the past and hopes for peace for them and prompts them toward service of others. This is likely connected to the priestly benediction in Numbers 6:22–27.