Luke 18:15 tells a story of people bringing infants to Jesus:

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. (ESV)

I take it from the flow of the narrative that politicians in that day must not have kissed babies while on the campaign trail, but why would the disciples have rebuked people for bringing the infants to Jesus? I assume it was clear to the original readers, but it's lost on me since there is no explanation in the text. Does historical research shed any light on this beyond what can be gleaned from this text?


4 Answers 4


Speaking generally, the disciples did not share Jesus' perspective on children, childlikeness, and childlike faith.

You may say, "But that does not explain WHY they didn't share Jesus' perspective. Were there cultural, psychological, social, ethical reasons why they felt the way they did?"

Good question(!), and I'll address it shortly, but think about it: Whenever Jesus told His followers NOT to do something (which they should not have been doing in the first place), it was because they did not share His divine perspective. The disciples' perspective therefore deserved a rebuke.

Mark tells us (10:13-16) Jesus was "indignant" when He saw what His disciples were doing. He would not have been indignant, I suggest, had the disciples NOT been taught somewhere along the way that Jesus is no respecter of persons but treats all people who genuinely seek Him, with love, dignity, and respect. After all, He was the friend of publicans and "sinners" and even women of ill repute (e.g., the "Woman at the Well," John 4).

Moreover, Jesus was big on faith, belief, and trust. People asked Him, "What shall we do to do the works of God?" His response: "Believe on me!" Since children, generally speaking, tend to believe, trust, and have faith in what adults (particularly parents) have to say, they serve as good role models for adults in the matter of faith. In Jesus' day, the religious establishment, by and large, found it difficult to believe Jesus wholeheartedly, and they consequently plotted against Him, trying to catch Him saying something controversial or to trip Him up with "difficult" questions.

In Luke 18, the context included Jesus' teaching on the superiority of the humility of the publican ("God, be merciful to me, a sinner") to the self-exaltation and justification of the Pharisee ("I thank you that I am not like the other people . . . I pray . . . I pay tithes . . ."). In Mark 10, the context included some Pharisees who tested Jesus with their questions about divorce. Perhaps, then, the disciples thought, given this milieu of criticism, suspicion, hatred, and resentment, that Jesus had "bigger fish to fry" than to "waste time" on children.

Jesus, however, not only loved children and encouraged them to come to Him to be touched, blessed, and prayed for (Matthew 19:13-15), but He frequently referred to His grownup disciples as "little ones" or "babes" (e.g., Mt 11:25 and Lk 10:21 KJV).

As an aside, the disciples may have been familiar with the story of Ismael ("God hears") in Genesis 21:17, where we read,

"And God heard the voice of the boy; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, 'What troubles you, Hagar? Do not be afraid; for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is.'”

Hagar is crying, but God is moved by the cry of a little boy (though I'm sure God cared about Hagar, too!). There is also the story of the Hebrew children whom the pharaoh at the time wanted killed, but Moses' mother and her midwife (as well as all the Hebrew midwives) defied the ruler's order and preserved the lives of the babies, including Moses.

I could go on and on citing instances in the Tanakh where children were elevated to the status of full personhood and significance in the outworking of God's plans and purposes, often from birth (e.g., Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, Samson), and instances of God's miraculous dealings with mothers (some of whom were barren) and their children (e.g., Sarah and Isaac, the widow of Zarephath and her son, a child--1 Ki 17:17-24).

In short, in this part of my answer, the disciples would seem to have been schooled in the importance of children and what they represent vis a vis faith and trust and their sheer intrinsic value (see Psalm 8:2 KJV).

As for cultural factors at work, there are a few noteworthy ones. As historian Richard Saller points out,

"The Roman father [paterfamilias] was a powerful type, because he possessed almost unlimited powers within the family, according to later Roman law. He had the power of life and death over his children, meaning that at birth he could choose to raise them or kill them, and later he could punish them by execution."

Moreover, to Romans in at least the century before Christ and the century after Christ, they generally did not distinguish between abortion and infanticide. If a given child was not a boy, for example, she could be thrown in the river to drown. If the child was a "mistake," either abortion or infanticide were permissible (Saller).

Within the Roman ethos in this regard, then, the disciples' attempt to keep the little ones from Jesus was certainly not on the same level as killing children, but it may have reflected a pervasive attitude at that time that children were relatively unimportant. By the way, the epistles which would come later in the church's history, included sections on God-approved family relations, making it clear to the early Christians that the family unit is indeed important and that roles within the family are to be played out in a spirit of love, respect, and mutual submission.

In conclusion, I think the first section of my answer is perhaps stronger than the second section. The disciples had simply failed to assimilate the values of the Tanakh regarding children, and the values which informed Jesus' dealings with children in general, and His teaching in particular.

  • I voted you up because this is a pretty thorough answer and this is a question that has to be made through deductive reasoning. I think when someone votes you down they should be required to #1 expose themselves and state why they did so. This way you have the ability to respond to there down vote - at the least, and have the ability to try and win them over.
    – JLB
    Feb 3, 2014 at 15:48
  • @JLB: Thanks for your "vote of confidence"! Don Feb 3, 2014 at 19:08

The reason the disciples rebuked the children coming to Jesus was that they believed in a political agenda. This agenda was that the Kingdom of God was the earthly Kingdom of Israel to be brought forth by might men NOT children. Acts 1:6 poses the question the disciples asked from Luke about Restoring the Kingdom of Israel as a reference.

Also to add, Jesus saw the potential power in children who were easily dependent on another that is God. Adult men are usually self reliant. Jesus sees the spiritual understanding that children and those of pure humble faith can receive the supernatural Kingdom of God.

  • Welcome to Stack Exchange, we are glad you are here. Please consider registering an account to fully take advantage of what this site has to offer. Also, be sure to check out the site tour and in particular what constitutes a good answer. We aren't a discussion board, so answers are expected to 1) answer only the question asked and 2) do more than just state your opinion. Don't just tell us what you know, show us know you know it.
    – ThaddeusB
    Oct 27, 2015 at 14:31
  • 1
    This is a really good thought and the start of a potentially good answer. To make it outstanding, Consider referencing some scriptures for context, giving some examples of other instances in which people are chided for expecting a military campaign instead of the Kingdom of God and/or referencing a commentary to support this idea further. A case could probably be made for this viewpoint, but you need to reference some evidence. Oct 27, 2015 at 17:14

Hang with me here a moment. The reason is found in Mark 10. Jesus was talking to people who were "divorced". However, this wasn't people who were given a certificate of divorce, this was the word shalach" which was "separation" or "putting away" without legal decree. What was happening was that these people were being treated unrighteously. Instead of giving them a certificate of divorce, one party would simply separate and then remarry, which (like today) is adultery. Jesus is telling them that if they do that they are committing adultery. Hang in there, it will tie in with the children in a moment. The reason they did this is that they had to give back the bride price and they were greedy. A compounding problem was that, especially with the women, if a man did such, his children stayed with the woman and were considered bastards... and bastards are unclean. As such, no one could touch them, especially a rabbi. So Jesus is talking to these adults and it says, "Then they..." these "separated" people... were bringing their children to him. Well gasp the disciples react automatically and rebuke them. These "kind' of children aren't allowed near them, let alone a rabbi. NOW it all makes sense, doesn't it? Jesus says, to such as these... to anyone who is "unclean" (which is all of us) belong the kingdom. Whoever stops one such as this will be frowned upon. The analogies are endless. How many feel unworthy of coming to Jesus? How many feel that they will never be good "enough" to go to Him. We have to come to Him "as children"... as these kind of children... who society earmarked as unclean and who, in spite of that, had the confidence to go to Him. Mark 10:16 is one of the most beautiful verses in scripture when you understand it, "And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands on them." We are all. all... all... ALL... welcome into His embrace. Reclaiming Victory Ministries Discipleship Counseling.


Given the context of the passage, and that of the same story in Matthew, this seemed to have happened while Jesus was teaching and answering questions about many other things. Likely the disciples saw the children as in the way, and interfering with the "more important" things Jesus was doing. It would be like people bringing kids up to a pastor or professor during a sermon, lecture, or Q&A session. Perhaps someone else has more of an insight from a Jewish cultural perspective.

  • @OwenlTguy This answer makes sense but not biblically substantiated. Although your correlation to the present day practice of what we call "church" is apropos and I would say Jesus would rebuke them just as strongly.
    – JLB
    Feb 3, 2014 at 15:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.