New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Receiving the Kingdom of God as a Child: Children

and Riches in Luke 18.15ff.

Stephen Fowl

New Testament Studies / Volume 39 / Issue 01 / January 1993, pp 153 - 158

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500020361, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500020361

How to cite this article:

Stephen Fowl (1993). Receiving the Kingdom of God as a Child: Children and Riches in
Luke 18.15ff.. New Testament Studies, 39, pp 153-158 doi:10.1017/
S0028688500020361

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 61.129.42.30 on 02 May 2015

New Test. Stud. vol. 39,1993, pp. 153-158

RECEIVING THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS A CHILD:

CHILDREN AND RICHES IN LUKE 18.15f£*

STEPHEN FOWL
(Department of Theology, Loyola College in Maryland, 4501 N. Charles Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21210, USA)

In Luke 18.17 Jesus tells his disciples (who have been hindering children
from coming to him) 'whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a
child (SeSjrytcu zr\v PocoiAeiocv zox> 0eou ax; naiSiov) will not enter (eiaeXQr[ tic)
it'. In spite of its relative obscurity, the image of receiving the kingdom as a
child has inspired a large amount of rich reflection. Inevitably, such reflec-
tion turns to such childlike attributes as humility, lack of pretension and/or
openness to illustrate the manner in which one must enter the kingdom.1
As I will argue presently, this reflection is really much more dependent on
Matthew's gospel than Luke.2 In Luke, on the other hand, there seem to be
several indications that the episodes which immediately follow this demand
in 18.17 illustrate what it means to receive the kingdom as a child.
My argument is not an attempt to preempt unnecessarily further
reflection on the image of receiving the kingdom as a child. Rather, my
claim is that there are sufficient reasons to see the accounts of the rich ruler
(18.18-30), of the disciples' response to this story (18.24-30), of the blind man
near Jericho (18.35-43) and of Zacchaeus (19.1-10) as examples, both
positive and negative, of receiving the kingdom of God as a child.3 If this is

I am grateful to my colleagues Charles Bobertz and Greg Jones for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this essay.
1
The following is a brief, and by no means exhaustive list of commentators who read
18.17 this way: C. P. Evans, Saint Luke (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990)
648 (renunciation of pretensions to greatness and achievement); J. A. Fitzmyer, The
Gospel according to Luke (2 vols.; Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 2.1191
(humility, openness, sheer receptivity); Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (2
vols.; JSNTS 20; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 2.669 (humility); W. Grundmann, Das Evange-
lium nach Lukas (3rd ed.; Berlin: Evangelische, 1966) 353 (humility); J. Kodell, 'Luke and
the Children: The Beginning and the End of the Great Interpolation', CBQ 49 (1977) 424-5
(humility); I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (New International Greek Testa-
ment Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 681-2 (humility, sheer receptivity);
R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 255
(humility); in the Oxford annotated version of the NRSV teachable humility is the child-
like attribute one must exhibit to enter the kingdom.
While almost every scholar agrees that Luke is dependent on Mark's gospel at this
point, most of them rely on Matthew in order to explicate the text as opposed to explaining
where the text came from. See for example J. Dupont, Les Beatitudes (3 vols.; 2nd ed.; Paris:
Gabalda, 1969) 2.161-81.
3
Luke T. Johnson in The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39;
Chico: Scholars, 1977) 144, briefly notes that the story of the rich ruler in 18.18-30 'appears as
a contrast to the reception of the kingdom ax, nouSiov'. While I agree that this is the case,
Johnson neither gives substantial reasons for this view nor does he display the nature of
this contrast.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30

154 STEPHEN FOWL
the case, then one would have to say that in Luke's gospel receiving the
kingdom as a child is not primarily achieved through the practice of child-
like humility and/or openness. Since so much reflection on this phrase
seems to be determined by its Matthean context, I will begin by examining
Matthew's gospel before turning to Luke.
Like Luke, Matthew relates the story of people bringing children to Jesus
in order that Jesus might touch them and pray for them (Matt 19.13-15).
Further, the disciples in Matthew act much as they do in Luke. In response
to this Jesus explains that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these
children. At this point in Matthew, however, Jesus does not go on to say that
whoever wishes to enter the kingdom must receive it as a child.4
At first glance, saying that the kingdom belongs to children such as these
is not much clearer than saying that one must receive the kingdom as a
child in order to enter it. In Matt 18.1—5, however, children are used to
illustrate the manner appropriate to entering the kingdom. In this case the
image is clearer. Here we read that the disciples approach Jesus to ask him
'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' In response Jesus places a
child in their midst and says that unless you 'change and become like the
children (yevrioGe coq xarcaiSia)you will not enter (eiaelGtite eiq) the kingdom
of heaven' (18.3). The next verse elaborates this claim specifically in terms
of humility. Jesus says that those who humble themselves as this child will
be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 18.4 makes it clear that
changing and becoming like children in order to enter the kingdom requires
one to adopt a certain humility. The incident closes with Jesus saying that
who-ever receives one of these children in his name also receives him.
In Luke there are no such elaborations of the demand that one receive
the kingdom as a child in order to enter it. As a result, there seems to be a
great temptation among commentators to read the Lukan account through
Matthean lenses, claiming that in Luke Jesus is likewise calling on the
disciples to take on the humility of a child to enter into the kingdom.
In some respects this is surprising since the Marcan parallel of this story
(10.13-16) is, at least formally, much closer to Luke than Matthew's account
is to either of them. As a means of explaining what it means to receive the
kingdom as a child, however, Mark's story is not particularly illuminating.
Mark places his account of Jesus and the children immediately after his
teaching on marriage and divorce (10.1-12). The following account of the
rich young man (10.17ff.) is presented as a temporally separate episode,
occurring as Jesus was setting out on a journey. Hence, when faced with
the demand to receive the kingdom of God as a child, Marcan commentators
seem to have little to go on. In this light, it is not uncommon to read that the
demand to receive the kingdom as a child has to do with developing childlike
receptivity.5 To say, however, that to receive the kingdom as a child one must

Kodell, 'Luke and the Children', 425, even goes so far as to say that the episode in Luke
can be considered complete without the addition of 18.17. It is hard to know what such a
claim might mean unless one is committed to reading Luke only in the light of Matthew.
5
So Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 422;
Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark (Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1963) 268; and Augustine Stock,
The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989) 270.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30

 CHILDREN AND RICHES IN LUKE 18.15ff. 155
develop childlike receptivity is not to say very much. I do not mean this as a
criticism of Marcan commentators. The fact is that the text is obscure and
Mark provides few resources for dealing with this obscurity. Thus, in spite
of Luke's formal similarities with Mark, it is the Matthean account with its
relatively clear emphasis on childlike humility that seems to shape
discussions of Luke 18.15ff. I want to argue, however, that Luke's account
does not readily lend itself to such a reading.
Against my claim, however, it might be noted that Luke 18.9—14, the
parable immediately preceding the account of people bringing children to
Jesus, concludes with the dictum, 'all who exalt themselves will be
humbled and those who humble themselves will be exalted'. This might be
used to provide some basis for reading the demand to receive the kingdom
as a child as a call to humility.6 The humility reflected in 18.17, however, is
not characterized as a childlike virtue. Rather it is illustrated by the tax
collector who is able to identify himself as a sinner in contrast to the
Pharisee's false sense of righteousness. Further, 18.9 makes it clear that
the initial point of the parable is to undermine both one's sense of one's own
righteousness and one's correlative certainty of others' unrighteousness. In
addition, this parable about one's attitude in prayer flows neatly from the
previous parable about persistent prayer (18.1-8). Finally, 18.1-14 is part of
an extended discussion with the disciples about the coming of the Son of
Man which begins at 17.22. The introduction of the children and those who
bring them in 18.15 would indicate that this is a new episode rather than a
continuation of the previous discussion. Hence, it seems better to see the
account of the children coming to Jesus in 18.15ff. as the beginning of a new
episode in the story rather than as an elaboration of the previous parable(s).
How then might one make sense of the claim that only those who receive
the kingdom as a child will enter it? A good place to start is with the story
immediately following - the story of the rich ruler related in 18.18ff. This
story begins with the ruler asking Jesus a question. The text does not
indicate that there has been any movement — spatial or temporal — between
Jesus' claim that one must receive the kingdom as a child in order to enter
it and the ruler's question.7 This may indicate that the question is a direct
response to Jesus' claims about entry into the kingdom. It would seem,
then, that the obvious question to ask would be 'How does one receive the
kingdom as a child?'
Instead, the ruler asks, 'Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal
life (^cor|v cxicbviov KXripovo|ir|oco)?' There is, however, more to connect this
question to the claim about receiving the kingdom as a child than we might
first expect. First, we need to remember that one receives the kingdom as a

Fitzmyer, 2.1191; Grundmann, 353 and Marshall, 681 all move in this direction.
Kodell, 423ff., goes even further, arguing that 18.14-23 form a pattern where the Pharisee
and the rich ruler are contrasted with the tax collector and children as a way of closing off
Luke's interpolation of Mark which began at 9.50. By focusing on Luke's compositional
technique in relation to his sources Kodell ends up ignoring the semantic features of the text
which tie 18.1-8 with w. 9-14 and which separate 18.9-14 from w. 15ff.
In contrast to Luke, the beginning of Mark 10.17 provides a temporal interruption
between Jesus' claims about receiving the kingdom as a child and the encounter with the
rich man in 10.17ff. See also Grundmann, 354 and Taylor, 425.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30

156 STEPHEN FOWL
child in order to enter (eioeXGeiv eiq) it. Then we need to recognize both in the
ensuing discussion between Jesus and the ruler and in the immediately
following conversation between Jesus and those listening (including the
disciples) that the phrases 'eternal life' in 18.18, 30, 'entering the kingdom'
(ei<; TTJV PaaiAeiav tou &eox> eioeXGeiv) in 18.25 and 'being saved' (acoSfjvou)
in 18.26 all are used to talk about the same subject.8 This fact seems to
strengthen further the connections between the claim of Jesus that only
those who receive the kingdom as a child will enter it and the ensuing story
about the rich ruler and the conversation it spawns.
It is clear, however, that this ruler is hardly an exemplar of receiving the
kingdom as a child. Indeed, the story leaves the distinct impression that he
failed to achieve the eternal life/entry to the kingdom/salvation which he
sought. 9 Is there a positive example of one who receives the kingdom as a
child? This seems to be a concern of those who have just listened to the
encounter between the ruler and Jesus. This concern reaches its peak when
Jesus describes how difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom. At this
point they ask 'who is able to be saved?' Jesus' response, 'What is impossible
for humans is possible for God', does not seem to satisfy Peter who notes
that he and his comrades have left their possessions10 and followed Jesus.
In response to this Jesus claims that, among other things, those who have
left possessions, family or loved ones for the sake of the kingdom will
achieve eternal life — the very thing sought by the ruler.
The already noted connections between eternal life and entering the
kingdom should then lead us to see the disciples as the first positive
example of receiving the kingdom as a child. It must be admitted, however,
that they would not have given up the sort of riches which the ruler seemed
to possess. The disciples are a positive example of those who receive the
kingdom as a child, yet their success is not strictly analogous to the ruler's
failure to receive the kingdom as a child.
The positive example of the disciples is further re-enforced by two
following episodes illustrating what it means to receive the kingdom as a
child. As Jesus approaches Jericho he encounters a blind man. It is only
the persistent crying of this man in the face of public disapproval, however,
which brings him to Jesus' attention. The faith of the blind man near
Jericho saves him (f) nioxiq GOX> OEOCOKGV oe). He, too, achieves what the rich
ruler sought and failed to find.
When viewed against the failure of the rich ruler to receive the kingdom
as a child, both the reference to the disciples in 18.28 and the blind man near
Jericho in 18.35-43 provide positive examples of those who do receive the
kingdom as children. It is the story of Zacchaeus in 19.1-10, however,

° Fitzmyer, 2.1196 is aware of these connections, but he makes little of them.

9
Though as Fitzmyer, 2.1198, notes, we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the ruler's
question.
10
The phrase tec iSice connotes ownership not "homes' as in the NRSV. See 6.41, 44; 10.34;
Acts 1.7, 19, 25; 3.12; 4.23, 32; 13.36; 20.28; 21.6; 24.23, 24; 25.19; 28.30. See also Fitzmyer,
2.1205, Marshall, 688 and T. E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels
(JSNTS 15; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 158.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30

 CHILDREN AND RICHES IN LUKE 18.15ff. 157
which provides the sharpest contrast with the ruler's failure to receive the
kingdom as a child.11
Zacchaeus' explicit aim is merely to see Jesus (19.3). He ends up, how-
ever, finding salvation (ccoxTipm) (19.9), the very thing sought by the rich
ruler, the thing which is conversationally linked in chapter 18 to entering
the kingdom of God. Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector, makes that difficult
move into the kingdom which seems so impossible to those who listened to
Jesus' encounter with the rich ruler (18.26). Further, we can assume that
the ruler would have considered himself a 'son of Abraham', based on the
ruler's description of his own observance of the commandments (18.20-1).
His encounter with Jesus, however, leaves us in doubt over this. Zacchaeus,
a widely recognized and self-confessed sinner (19.7-8), 12 on the other hand,
turns out to be a 'son of Abraham' based on the manner in which he
receives Jesus.
If, based on these connections, one then takes Zacchaeus (along with the
disciples and the blind man) and the rich ruler as examples of succeeding
and failing to receive the kingdom as a child, what might we say about this
image? Clearly, in these passages receiving or failing to receive the king-
dom as a child is a function of the manner in which one receives Jesus.
This much we might already suspect in the light of 9.46-8 and 10.1-16.
What is it that characterizes Zacchaeus', the blind man's and the disciples'
responses as childlike in contrast to the rich ruler?
The ruler's failure to receive the kingdom in the appropriate manner is a
function of his failure to perform the one final thing Jesus asked of him. He
was unable to sell all his goods and give to the poor. Zacchaeus, with no
prompting from Jesus, cannot seem to get rid of his riches fast enough. The
rich ruler is too hesitant, too circumspect. Zacchaeus, rather, presents a
11
Almost all commentators note that Zacchaeus stands as a contrast to the rich ruler.
That is, he is the rich man who can only be saved by an act of God. Very few commentators,
however, make any connections between the story of Zacchaeus with idea of receiving the
kingdom as a child. For exceptions to this general rule see F. W. Hobbie, 'Luke 19.1-10',
Int 31 (1977) 285-90; William Loewe, 'Towards an Interpretation of Lk. 19:1-10', CBQ 36
(1974) 321-31; John O'Hanlon, 'The Story of Zacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic', JSNT 12
(1981) 2-26. Unfortunately, neither O'Hanlon nor Hobbie state the nature of this connec-
tion. Loewe claims that the description of Zacchaeus as being short ties the Zacchaeus story
to both 18.17 and 9.48 (see 325). Since Loewe does not explain how being short indicates that
one has received the kingdom as a child we are still left wondering about the nature of the
connections between 18.15-17 and 19.1-10.
The traditional view of 19.8 is that Zacchaeus is commiting himself to a future course
of action as an implicit sign of repentance. There is a recent body of interpretation,
however, which reads 19.8 as Zacchaeus' defence to Jesus against the crowd's complaint that
he is a sinner. (The most recent advocate of this view is A. C. Mitchell, 'Zacchaeus
Revisited: Luke 19:8 as Defense', Bib 71 [1990] 153-76.) On this view, Zacchaeus is not
pledging a change in his behaviour. Rather, he is referring to his usual custom as a sort of
apologia. I am not sure that my reading depends on taking a side in this debate.
Nevertheless, it seems that the logic of the story leads one to read 19.8 in the traditional
manner. For example, if Zacchaeus is in the regular practice of giving half his goods to the
poor, he could hardly qualify as 'rich' (19.2). Secondly, Jesus' claim to have come to seek
and save the lost in 19.10 seems to draw its force from the fact that Zacchaeus really was in
some sense lost. For a recent defence of this traditional view see D. Hamm, S.J., 'Luke 19:8
Once Again: Does Zacchaeus Defend or Resolve?', JBL 107 (1988) 431-7.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30

158 STEPHEN FOWL
picture of one who single-mindedly abandons anything which seems pre-
viously to have kept him from finding salvation. Likewise, Peter emphasizes
to Jesus that he and the other disciples have left their possessions and
followed Jesus. The blind man shuns the crowd's approbations in order to
get Jesus' attention. The childlike nature of these receptions of Jesus (and
the kingdom) inheres in each character's sudden, single-minded attraction
to a particular object or person. Further, such attraction leads these
characters to abandon or circumvent anything which threatens to keep
them from the focus of their affections. While joy (19.6) and other obvious
benefits result from such single-minded pursuit and reception of the
kingdom, there is nothing humble or self-effacing about this reception.
I am hesitant either to base or to confirm readings of this passage on
observations about the behaviour of contemporary children. Nevertheless, it
is not unusual to see children drop what they are doing and attach them-
selves to an object of desire (normally a toy or a parent) with the type of
single-minded vigour characterized by the disciples, the blind man in
Jericho and Zacchaeus.13
The rich ruler's failure to receive the kingdom as a child is both poignant
and ironic. He initially felt there was something lacking in regard to his
salvation which Jesus might be able to rectify. He was seeking the kingdom
in a far more active and diligent way than any of those who end up entering
it. Upon finding that it will cost him his wealth, however, the ruler fails to
convert his diligence into the single-minded pursuit of an object charac-
teristic of a child. Indeed, this failure confirms that his pursuit of the
kingdom was not as single-minded as his own account of his life might
indicate.
As modern readers we need to be wary of lapsing into the very modern
practice of sentimentalizing our views of children and then reading such
views into Luke's account of Jesus' command to receive the kingdom of God
as a child. Reducing this demand to an attitude of openness and trust seems
to be unable to account for the particularities of this story and its con-
nections to the paragraphs which follow. Likewise, to see receiving the
kingdom of God as a child in terms of humility would be to read Luke in a
decidedly Matthean fashion, thus also obscuring the particularities of
Luke's account. Instead, I have argued that if we read Luke 18.15 in the
light of the paragraphs that follow, seeing the rich ruler, the disciples, the
blind man and Zacchaeus as exemplars of either failure or success in
regard to receiving the kingdom as a child, we will see Jesus' command as
a call to single-minded, unrelenting pursuit of an object of desire.

13
It is indeed interesting that many of the traits of babies which Augustine points to in his
Confessions (Bk 1 ch. 7) as evidence of their sinfulness are similar to the characteristics
Luke uses to illustrate receiving the kingdom of God as a child. Indeed, one of the few, if not
the only case in which it seems that such childlike devotion to an object of desire does not
lapse into selfishness and greed noted by Augustine is when such devotion is directed
towards a parent.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 May 2015 IP address: 61.129.42.30