NOTES FOR BIBLE STUDENTS BY BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D.
These “Notes” are taken from “The Bible Student and Teacher.” Dr. Warfield is a professor of theology in Princeton, New York, and a learned expositor and defender of sound doctrine.—ED.
IT is exceedingly touching to observe the tenderness of our Lord’s habitual thought of His followers, as manifested in the affectionate designations which He applies to them. It was a land and an age in which the teaching function was greatly magnified. “No Hindoo fanatic,” writes Edersheim, “would more humbly bend before Brahmin saints, nor devout Romanist more venerate the members of a holy community than the Jew his great Rabbis.” And Jesus was the supreme Rabbi, veritably, “a teacher come from God” (John iii. 2). First and above everything else, therefore, His followers were His “disciples,” and so He constantly thought and spoke of them (Luke xxii. 11; John viii. 31; xiii. 35; xv. 8). As His “disciples” they were, of course, also His “servants” (Matt. x. 24, 25; John xii. 26; xiii. 16); for this is the relation which was universally assumed to be implied in discipleship (Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr., on John xv. 11). But Jesus did not wish to look upon His “disciples” as “servants,” though He alone of the Rabbis was really their Lord as well as Master. He preferred to think of them as “friends” (John xv. 15). Nay, they were more even than “friends,” they were his “children” (Mark x. 24; John xxi. 5), or in the extreme expression of His tenderness, His “little children” (John xiii. 33). His shepherd heart went out to them as His “flock” (Matt. xxvi. 31; John x. 16, R.V.), or rather, in the fondness of His thought of them, His “little flock” (Luke xii. 32.) They were His “sheep” (Matt. x. 6), or even His “little sheep” (John x. 7, 16.); or, rather, more lovingly, His “lambs” (Luke x. 3), or even His “little lambs,” His “lambkins” (John xxi. 15). It will be observed that the use of what the grammarians call “hypocoristics,” or “endearing diminutives,” is characteristic of our Lord’s thought and speech concerning His followers. In a word, He employs by predilection “pet names” in designating them.
What may be looked upon as, in a formal point of view at least, the typical form of our Lord’s “endearing diminutives” as applied to His disciples, may possibly be discerned in a designation that occurs a half-dozen times in the record of the Evangelists, though in all these cases it may have been spoken by the Lord on not more than two or three different occasions. We refer to the designation, “These little ones.” There is no substantive expressed. The adjective “little” simply with the article is used substantively—”the little;” though the demonstrative pronoun is always present, and the phrase is not “the little [ones],” but ever “these little [ones].” The emphasis that is solely upon the objects to whom the designation is applied. These objects are called nothing whatever but “little.” This certainly bears the appearance of being formally just the perfect embodiment of the “endearing diminutive,” the “pet name,” so to speak, at its climax—the expression of pure affection without implication of aught else whatsoever. It seems, that is, to tell us nothing about Christ’s “little ones” except that He loves them very fondly, and thinks of them with exquisite tenderness, going out towards them in a passionate impulse of protection. Let us see if this be not true.
It has sometimes been thought, no doubt, that the phrase “these little ones” is merely a paraphrase for “children,” and even that it is sometimes employed quite literally to mean just actual children. Thus multitudes of Christians seem to be accustomed to read Matt. xviii. 10, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” quite simply as a declaration that the “angels of little children” (whatever these “angels” may be) hold a peculiarly exalted place in heaven. The repetition of the phrase “these little ones” in this verse from verse 6, and the relation of the phrase in verse 6 to the corresponding phrase “one such little child” in verse 5, together with the connection of this whole series of verses (5-14) with verses 1-4, where a “little child” is presented as a model to the disciples, appear to many readers to exclude all other interpretations. And this feeling seems to receive support from the parallel passages, Mark ix. 37, 42, Luke ix. 48, xviii. 2, from which it is inferred that the idea of actual little children underlies the expression. The conviction derived from the passages, that it is little children who are meant by the phrase, becomes so strong in the minds of some, indeed, that they are ready to impose it vi et armis even on such a passage as Matt. x. 42, where there is no allusion to children in the context at all. Thus, for example, Alford and Morrison suggest that we must suppose that some actual children were present when our Lord was delivering His instructions to the Apostles, and that He indicated them by a gesture—“one of these little ones,” these, to wit, whom you see standing there. To seek the “children” somewhere outside the discourse, however, surely amounts to an admission that they are not discoverable in the discourse.
In endeavouring to ascertain the real meaning of the phrase, it may be well to take our start from this last-cited passage. It gives us at once its first appearance in the Gospel narratives and its earliest recorded occurrence in the discourses of our Lord. Our Lord is (Matt. x. 40-42) bringing to a close His instructions to the Apostles as He sent them forth on their first, their trial, evangelistic tour. His words are words of the highest encouragement. “He that receiveth you,” He says, “receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.” That is the general declaration: our Lord makes common cause with His messengers.
Then comes the enforcement by illustration. It was a matter of common understanding that “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet”—that is, not in the name of another prophet, but on this sole ground, that he is a prophet, or, as we should say in our English idiom, “as a prophet”—”shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man”—that is, again, merely because of his righteousness—”shall receive a righteous man’s reward.” The broad principle, then, is that the receiver shall be put, in the matter of reward, on the level of the received; he, by his reception of the prophet or righteous man, takes common ground with him, and becomes sharer in his reward. Now comes the application, marked as such (and not the continuation of the examples), by a change of construction. “And whosoever”—perhaps we may paraphrase, “Likewise whosoever”—”whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” The ordering of the clauses in this sentence is parallel with the ordering of the clauses in each of the preceding sentences. As, then, in them the prophet was received in the name of a prophet, and the righteous man in the name of a righteous man, so here when we read of “one of these little ones” being received in the name of a “disciple,” it is clear that these two terms are synonyms. “One of these little ones,” means in other words just a “disciple.” Again, “in the name of a disciple” here means just what “in the name of a prophet” or “in the name of a righteous man” meant in the preceding clauses; that is to say, not “in the name of another disciple,” but “on this sole ground, namely, that he is a disciple.” If the receiver of the prophet shall share a prophet’s reward, and the receiver of the righteous man the righteous man’s reward, so the receiver of the disciple shall share the disciple’s reward. Therefore, again, a “little one” is just another name for “a disciple.”
It is not merely the parallelism that would be ruined, however, by reading, “Whosoever shall give drink unto a little child in the name of a disciple.” The entire significance of the declaration would be wrecked. The object of the declaration was to enhearten and encourage the Apostles on their mission. How would it enhearten them to tell them that goodness to children would surely receive its reward? It was that goodness to them, the disciples, should receive a high reward that they needed to be assured of. We may be certain, then, that it is this that is asserted. And even the variations of phraseology introduced into the parallel sentences in this application, conduce to emphasising this needed lesson. These variations are four in number. In the first place, instead of the simple “he that” receiveth we have here the emphasized universal “whosoever;” there is no danger of failure here! Next, instead of the simple comprehensive “receiveth,” we have here the least conceivable benefit specified—”shall give to drink a cup of cold water only : ” the slightest goodness to them shall be noted and rewarded ! Next, instead of the simple statement that the benefitter shall share the reward of the benefitted, we have the solemn asseveration that in no case will a due reward be missed : the nature of the reward is left in large vagueness, and it is hinted only that it shall be appropriate, treated as due, and surely given. Lastly, instead of the cold ” a disciple,” we have the tender ” one of these little ones.” The ” disciples” our Lord has in mind are His own disciples ; His own disciples He loves with a devoted love ; and this love is pledged to their protection. How natural it is then that he that receives them shall be treated as having received Him ! The effect of these variations from the formally exact parallel is thus not to destroy or even to mar the parallel, but to raise it to its emotional climax. The lesson conveyed is that Christ’s disciples are under the watchful charge of His jealous love, a love that is as strong as death, the flashes whereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord.
The case stands precisely the same with the paragraph Matt. xviii. 6-14. It can seem to be different there, indeed, only when we misapprehend the relations of this paragraph to the preceding one (Matt. xviii. 1-4) and the nature of the transition that is made at verse 5. The Apostles had been disputing as to their relative claims to greatness in the coming kingdom ; and the Lord teaches them a much-needed lesson in humility by means of the example of a little child. Setting a little child in their midst, He exhorts them to emulate its simplicity if they would be first in the kingdom of heaven. With the fourth verse, however, this incident closes, and the lesson from it is concluded. The discussion that follows, in the succeeding verses, is no longer an inculcation of humility. It is an exhilarating pledge of the whole mediatorial, or rather Divine, power, to the keeping, protection, and glorification of Christ’s followers. The connection between the two paragraphs is of the slenderest, and appears to consist of little more than this—that Christ’s followers are spoken of in both paragraphs as like little children. In the first paragraph they are exhorted to become ” as little children,” and commendation is passed upon those who humble themselves ” as this little child.” In the second paragraph we are told how our Lord stands affected towards—not ” little children ” literally, but ” such little children “—such, that is, as become like little children, in obedience to Him. These, He declares, He takes under His own protection, rewarding those who benefit them, and visiting with the severest punishment those who evil-entreat them ; their angels ever behold the Father’s face in heaven ; if they go astray everything is dropped that they may be sought out and recovered ; the Father’s will is pledged that no one of them shall perish.
The note of individual, as over against class, oversight and protection, must be observed in order to appreciate the full value of this language. From the beginning throughout the stress is laid upon the individual as the object of the Divine love. Whoever receives any one such little child receives Christ ; whoever causes a single one of them to stumble, were better drowned in the sea ; no single one of them must be despised, since their angels abide in the Father’s presence ; if only one of them strays, all is left until he be recovered ; the Father’s will is that not a single one of them shall perish. It were absurd to suppose that the subject of all these great assurances were the whole body of human infants—of a large number of whom such assurances are never fulfilled. The passage is in effect but the Synoptic parallel of the seventeenth chapter of John, with its great assertion that nothing shall be lost of all that the Father has given the Son : or, perhaps better, the evangelic parallel of Romans viii. 28-39 with its triumphal note of perfect safety for all that love God. Christ’s “little ones,” in short, are just who He tells us they are—”those that believe on Him,” of whom “it is not the will of the Father that one should perish,” whose angels “in heaven do always behold the face of the Father which is in heaven.”
The same conclusion is forced on us similarly at Mark ix. 42, the declaration of which is parallel with Matt. xviii. 6, and is immediately preceded by a verse, the thought of which is parallel to Matt. x. 42, so that it gives us afresh in a single context the two primary statements which we have met with in Matthew. We read here, “Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe to stumble, it were better for him that a great mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.” The variation of the phraseology, in verse 41 from its parallel in Matt. x. 42 supplies a commentary upon the meaning of the phrases in the latter. The “little ones” of the one becomes the “you”—that is, Christ’s Apostles—in the other ; and the “in the name of a disciple” of the one becomes “in the name that ye are Christ’s” in the other. Thus the interpretation offered of the passage in Matthew is confirmed by the very language of the passage in Mark. But this language also sets the meaning of the phrases of the succeeding verse. The “you”—that is, the disciples—of this verse is replaced in that by “these little ones that believe,” which must therefore mean the same thing as the “you”—that is to say, just “the disciples.” This would be manifest, indeed, of itself, since these “little ones” are specifically defined here not as little ones simply, but as those little ones “that have faith.” This specific class of little ones, then—the class of “believers”—is the one designated. It is quite clear therefore that “these little ones” in this passage means not children, but Christ’s disciples.
In the only other passage in which the phrase occurs—Luke xvii. 2—the matter is equally clear. This passage is parallel in its assertion with Matt. xviii. 6 and Mark ix. 42, and repeats in effect their language. “It were well for him, through whom occasions of stumbling come,” we read, “if a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.” There is no allusion to children in the entire context, in which our Lord simply warns His “disciples” against sins against their brethren. In this and the parallel passage in Mark, in other words, we have simply renewed manifestations of the Saviour’s infinite concern for those He calls “these little ones.” He pronounces the sin of causing those for whom His love was thus pledged to stumble almost too great for words to express.
On each occasion of its occurrence, therefore, the phrase “these little ones” evinces itself, independently, a designation, not of children, but of the disciples of Christ. In these circumstances we can not permit doubt to be thrown on its meaning in the palmary passage, Matt. xviii. 6, by the circumstance that certain passages in Mark (ix. 37) and Luke (ix. 48) which are parallel to Matt. xviii. 1-5 might easily be understood of little children. The phrase “these little ones” does not occur in these passages of Mark and Luke; its place being taken by language which, if these passages stood alone, might easily suggest to the reader only little children. Perhaps, however this is saying a little too much of the passage in Mark (ix. 36, 37), at least. This reads “And he took a little child and set him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, “Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” The account in Matthew is fuller and permits the connection of the clauses to be more exactly estimated: it seems as if it were merely the compression of Mark’s report which is responsible for the apparent identity of the “little child” of verse 36 and “one of such little children” of verse 37. But even in Mark it is to be noted the phrases employed in the two verses are not the same. The phrase used in the latter verse is not a “little child,” but “one of such little children.” This is practically the same with Matthew’s “one such little child,” and seems to be open to the same interpretation,—not “one little child,” but “one of those who are spiritually like little children.” And the subsequent use (verse 42) of the phrase “one of these little ones” obviously in this spiritual sense, renders this interpretation easier. Dr. Alexander Maclaren appears entirely justified, therefore, when he tells us (“Bible Class Expositions, Mark,” page 142) that “such little children” here means just “those who are thus lowly, unambitious and unexacting.”
It must be confessed, on the other hand, that if Luke ix. 48 stood alone we should very naturally think in it of nothing but a literal child. What Luke tells us is that Jesus “took a little child and set him by his side, and said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name, receiveth me, and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me.” THIS little child ” seems an explicit reference to the child seated by Jesus’ side. Indeed, the reference is just a little too explicit. Are we to believe, for example, that just THIS PARTICULAR CHILD was intended, and no other? Is the promise confined to those who received THIS SINGLE CHILD which Jesus now had by His side? Surely the meaning is not this particular child, but as G. L. Hahn puts it, “that which is represented by this child.” Is, then, what is represented by this child just other actual children like itself? Or rather all those who bear an inner resemblance to its childlike qualities? It does not seem out of the question that the latter may be intended. And the concluding clause does something to bear this out. “For,” we read, “he that is least among you all, the same is great.” “Least”—surely not in size or age: in inner self-estimation rather, in humility and absence of self-consciousness. Thus, after all, there is a flavour of something else than youthfulness even in this passage also.
Perhaps we may not unjustly say, then, with Hahn, that “the sense of the first clause is: not ‘A child is so highly esteemed in God’s sight that to receive it in Christ’s name is the same as to receive God’ (Bisping Keil); nor yet, ‘Every disciple of Christ who is like a child in unassumingness and humility is so highly esteemed of God that whoever receives him, etc.’ (Meyer); but, ‘Every kindness that any one shows to the least of My followers, because he is My follower, is reckoned to him as if he had shown it to Me, even to My heavenly Father Himself.'” Something like this is obviously intended: and in proportion as we feel that this is the case in that proportion we feel that it is at least inadequate to understand the phrase “this little child” as referring merely to a literal child. Accordingly, Dr. Broadus waxes very bold, and prefers to interpret explicitly of the spiritual child (on Matt. xviii. 5-9). “The reference in Matthew and Mark,” he says, “is plainly to the lowly believer. But Luke says, ‘Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name.’ Luke’s account is very brief, omitting the sayings of Matt. xviii. 3, 4. The idea had become familiar to all Christian minds that Jesus used a little child for an object lesson, and so it is likely that Luke meant ‘this little child’ representatively, the lowly believer who is like this child.”
Some may feel, no doubt, that such an interpretation subjects the actual text of Luke too strongly to the influence of the parallel passages: and that we ought to interpret Luke strictly independently, apart from all influence from them. In that case surely we should interpret Matthew and Mark also strictly independently, apart from the influence of what may appear to us the natural meaning of Luke; and this passage can not then be pleaded as modifying the apparent sense of those. Indeed, in any event, explain the difference of language as we may, and understand Luke as we can, the passages in Matthew and Mark too clearly indicate their own meaning to be successfully explained in a different sense, for the purpose of harmonizing them with Luke. If we find it difficult to understand Luke in harmony with them, we must just let Luke bear the brunt of the difficulty. However we ultimately expound his text, we must abide by the clear meaning conveyed by the language of Matthew and Mark for theirs.
We may take it, then, as established that the phrase “these little ones” on the Master’s lips meant not “Children,” but distinctly “My disciples.” The question still presses, however, whence the Master derived this term as a designation of His disciples. It has frequently been suggested that He simply adopted it from the Rabbinical schools, in which “little ones” had come to be a current designation of “pupils.” This idea seems traceable to John Jacob Wetstein, who in his great edition of the Greek New Testament illustrates the phrase on its first occurrence (Matt. x. 40) by the following citation from an old Jewish commentary on Genesis known as the “Bereshith Rabba” (xlii. 4), “If there are no little ones there are no disciples; if there are no disciples, there are no sages; if there are no sages, there are no elders; if there are no elders, there are no prophets; if there are no prophets, there is no God.” Following this suggestion, commentators of the highest rank, such as Bolten, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, Fritzsche, have accordingly explained the phrase simply as a Hebraism for “disciples,” so that in His employment of it our Lord would have done nothing but adopt a current denomination of “disciples.” The correctness of the assumption on which this explanation is based—viz., the currency in the Rabbinical schools of the phrase “little ones” as a designation of “pupils,” was, however, long ago called sharply in question by Meyer (Ed. 2, p. 215, note) and Bruno Bauer (II. 241). The passage from the “Bereshith Rabba,” Meyer points out, is scarcely foundation enough for such an assumption, especially as the progressive development of the idea embodied in it seems plainly to indicate that in it the term “little ones” means not “disciples,” but just “children.” As a consequence of these criticisms, the notion has quite generally died out, and most commentators will agree to-day with Weiss (Meyer, 8 Ed., 1890) when he says briefly, “Wetstein erroneously maintains that the expression was current among the Rabbis for the conception ‘disciples.'”
(To be continued.)
The Revival in Wales.—A religious movement of some consequence at present going on in Wales. There are no reports to hand yet by discriminating witnesses, but it is evident that some remarkable power is working. In the Rhonda Valley the whole football world is paralysed. Both players and spectators have deserted the field for the prayer meeting. Truly a strange transformation.