“The problem you’re encountering is that you bring your own metaphors and preconceived notions into your study of the scriptures.....As you have no clue to what it means you then pounce on it as reinforcing and consistent with your predetermined ideas.”
But I have no problem in understanding that what the writer is dealing with in (Prov. 20:24), “Man’s goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?” is the sovereignty of God. That’s why the verse was included with others dealing with God’s sovereignty. I did notice that you did not give your interpretation of the verse.
“What does Christ have to say?”
Those verses in “Matthew 18:1-4” have nothing to do with the sovereignty of God nor with innocency or sinlessness. They have to do with humble serving. Parallel scriptures are found in Mark 9:33-37 and Luke 9:46-48.
Jesus had previously singled out Peter, James, and John, as in Matthew 17:1, for special honor. The disciples were wondering what would the role of each of the disciples be? Undoubtedly, the disciples had been unduly concerned about their status in the coming kingdom. It is clear that they were still anticipating an earthly kingdom, in which Jesus would be the King and they would be His privileged servants.
As they gathered at the home which Jesus had established in Capernaum (Mt 17:24; Mk 9:33) they were arguing among themselves as to “who should be the greatest” in the Kingdom. Luke 9:46-50. (Mt 18:1). According to Mark 9:33, Jesus had raised the question, “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” Apparently, they did not answer immediately, for Mark 9:34 states, “But they held their peace. Breaking the awkward silence, apparently one of the disciples asked the question recorded in Matthew 18:1.
In answer to their question, Jesus called a little child to Him. When the disciples observed the little child standing in their midst, Jesus then took the child in His arms (Mk 9:36-37) and said to the disciples, “Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” Luke reports the incident this way, (Luke 9:48), “Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. Matthew reports it this way, “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” (Mt 18:3-4).
Jesus, in effect, was saying that they were asking the wrong question. They should have been asking, how can I best serve the King? rather than, How can I best serve myself? The child in the arms of Jesus was a graphic illustration of loving trust, immediate obedience in coming to the arms of Christ, and in seeking only the position of being loved. True greatness involved taking an attitude of unpretentious humility instead of seeking a position of power. Jesus used the occasion, however, to speak of the importance of human personality, as illustrated in the child who has no position or wealth and no power. Instead of seeking greatness in the kingdom, the disciples should be seeking how they can serve ordinary human beings, such as this child. Jesus stated that if they received a child in His name, it signified that they were in a proper relationship of faith in Christ Himself.
These teachings of Jesus were in sharp contrast to that which was popular in the heathen world, where children were often used as human sacrifices and often suffered cruelty and neglect. The disciples, accordingly, were warned not to offend a child. It would be better to be drowned in the deep sea with a millstone around one’s neck than to offend a little one. It would be better to have a hand or foot cut off or an eye plucked out than to offend one of these, especially in spiritual things.
(I've modified my initial quote so as to comply with the rules of this forum. The brackets represent words originally written as the English general use of "you" like the Spanish Ustedes)
blue-duncan wrote: But I have no problem in understanding that what the writer is dealing with in (Prov. 20:24), “Man’s goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?” is the sovereignty of God. That’s why the verse was included with others dealing with God’s sovereignty. I did notice that you did not give your interpretation of the verse.
Prov. 20:24 is misinterpreted again. If a person approaches it as trying to prove the "sovereignty of God" that's all they see. It really says that the entire purpose of human life is to return to live with God. No man can understand himself outside of that context. The verse makes no statement about God's "sovereignty" at all. Goings means step as in the path you are walking. Its root word implies solemnity as in marching with intention. It refers to mortality - birth, life, death - and the purpose of it all. That is the proper context. Sovereignty is not in it, unless the reader injects his own opinion into the text.
blue-duncan wrote: Those verses in “Matthew 18:1-4” have nothing to do with the sovereignty of God nor with innocency or sinlessness. They have to do with humble serving.
This gets very close to the correct interpretation. But, reread the passage and remember it did not contain chapter headings or numbered verses originally. These are interpolations placed on the scriptures by the collectors of them. It contains several very sophisticated ideas only somewhat related.
Verses 5 & 6 contain a new thought which blue-duncan explains this way: These teachings of Jesus were in sharp contrast to that which was popular in the heathen world, where children were often used as human sacrifices and often suffered cruelty and neglect.
This is not historically accurate or true. Only a narrow group used children in human sacrifice offerings. For the most part heathens/pagans loved their children just as we do today.
So what does Christ mean in Matt. 18:1-4?
Verse one gives the question, asked in ego. That is the disciples, like normal humans, want to understand the Gospel within their own human context. That is that the kingdom of Heaven must have a hierarchy/power structure like earth life does and they want to rank their importance.
Christ, the perfect teacher, takes a child to him as a perfect symbol, but of what? What does a child have that adults do not? A child has an open view of the world and is willing to see things not as he wants, but as they are. Children, know nothing and so don't inject their preconceived notions/knowledge into the text.
Here is Christ's specific answer to the question, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" : And said, 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.
Look at the answer with an open mind. Converted in this context is very different from the converted in Matt 13:15 in the original Hebrew. In Matt 18, converted refers to a complete or absolute change in mind. Like a 180 degree turn in a person's course of conduct.
Next, Christ uses the Hebrew word children in the sense of a metaphor as in childlike intellect (this is the same implication as in 18:2 - innocence in worldview meaning a willingness to learn without presuppositions). The metaphor is used again in verse 4 and 5, although verse 5 represents a new idea beyond our current discussion.
Now, the final key to understanding this concept is the word "humble". Here the Hebrew is subtle again (It is the amazing nature of Christ to teach on so many levels - let him with ears hear, no?) The Hebrew root is an adjective meaning not rising high above the ground. Someone in that position cannot get a clear view and so must depend on another to know. A person like that could not inject their own view. Get it?
But, the humble in the verse is a verb (action). That is those, like us, adults, the Pharisaic class and even the disciples at this time, need to unhitch ourselves from our preconceived notions and be courageously ready to receive the truth regardless of where it leads. Christ states unequivocally: "ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" without first doing this. So arguments about who is greatest are beyond absurd.
It is a mistake to mix the other Gospel accounts of this story because each author is treating with a certain audience. It is critical to remember this as we try to understand the scriptures. Matthew's audience are the Jews, the remnant of Israel that remains and those who believe that they "know-it-all" already. Don't inject your preconceived notions into the text or the Gospel.
That is Christ's message, not as blue-duncan interpreted it: Jesus, in effect, was saying that they were asking the wrong question. They should have been asking, how can I best serve the King? rather than, How can I best serve myself? The child in the arms of Jesus was a graphic illustration of loving trust, immediate obedience in coming to the arms of Christ, and in seeking only the position of being loved. True greatness involved taking an attitude of unpretentious humility instead of seeking a position of power. Jesus used the occasion, however, to speak of the importance of human personality, as illustrated in the child who has no position or wealth and no power. Instead of seeking greatness in the kingdom, the disciples should be seeking how they can serve ordinary human beings, such as this child. Jesus stated that if they received a child in His name, it signified that they were in a proper relationship of faith in Christ Himself. This is a modern interpolation on the text that, however convenient to ones current worldview, simply is not there
As I have clearly shown the above is wrong, both textually, linguistically and by audience.