Mark 10:2-16 (NRSV)

2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ ³He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ ⁴They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ ⁵But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. ⁶But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” ⁷“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ⁸and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ¹⁰ Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.¹¹He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ ¹³ People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. ¹⁴But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. ¹⁵Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’ ¹⁶And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

Readers might have noticed that I often depend on William Barclay for some of what we write. This is one of the main purposes of this exercise; and that is to let this wise biblical scholar inform me as wejourney together. I was comforted when reading the preface to C F D Moule’s commentary on the Gospel. As you know, he was one of the great New Testament scholars of the 20^th Century, being a senior professor at Cambridge. He wrote:

“This small book contains one or two ideas that, I think, are more or less original; but, in the main, it owes so much to others that, if the normal method of acknowledgment had been adopted, it would have consisted largely of footnotes …”

In this passage – which deals with divorce and the blessing of little children - Barclay suggests, is all about the dignity of all people in the sight of God, especially women and children. Divorce was a burning question at the time and the Pharisees were testing Jesus. This could be for a number of reasons: (i) to bring him into conflict with Herod – for this was John the Baptist’s undoing; (ii) it would make him contradict the law of Moses, which would bring him into conflict with the religious authorities because he would be going against ‘sound doctrine’!

The issue was that divorce was very easy for any man, but almost impossible for a woman because they were regarded as mere ‘things’, with no legal rights and at the complete disposal of the male head of the family. A man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds – for some – even a spoilt dish of food – or if he found another woman more attractive!

So, Jesus was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the position it ought to have had. Jesus explains that the Law of Moses on this issue was necessary because of the hardness of heart of the people. Barclay suggests that Matthew is right in adding that divorce could be legitimate on the grounds of adultery because this act already breaks the bond and so a divorce merely seals what has already happened.

Marriage is sacred and not merely for one’s pleasure – it is also a big responsibility. It is not only a physical union, but more importantly it is also a spiritual union. Barclay concludes that Jesus was ‘… building a rampart around the home …’

Women are as important as men and children (neglected in Jesus’ day) as well.

It is the most natural thing in the world for Jewish mothers to wish that their children be blessed by a great and distinguished rabbi. It was especially significant for this to happen on the child’s first birthday and it was this sort of thing that was happening as recorded in our reading. Barclay reminds us that it is important to remember that the context of this passage is set at a time when Jesus knew that he was on his way to the Cross. It was at such a time that Jesus had time for children; he took them in his arms, hugged them and probably played with them for a while.

The disciples probably just wanted to protect Jesus; they did not fully understand what was going on, but they probably understood enough to realise that tragedy (at least in their eyes) lay ahead. They did not want Jesus to be ‘bothered’ under the circumstances.

This tells us, yet again, a great deal about Jesus. As Barclay writes: “He was the kind of person who cared for children and for whom children cared.” He probably smiled easily and laughed joyously and so reveals a lot about the human Jesus. Jesus said: “… it is to such that the kingdom of God belongs …” Barclay suggests that Jesus was attracted to the following attributes of children:

(i)                  Humility: Children are embarrassed by prominence and publicity and they have not yet learned to discover the importance of himself;

(ii)                Obedience: A child’s natural instinct is to obey;

(iii)               Trust: Children tend to accept authority and has confidence in other people; they do not expect any people to be ‘bad’ people and believes rather the best about others;

(iv)              Short memory: Children have not yet learned to bear grudges and harbour bitterness; they forget so easily that it is almost that they have nothing to forgive …

This is what the kingdom of God is like!

Denis Nineham states that ‘… like many of the vivid scenes depicted in the Gospels, it contains a good deal more than may, at first, appear …’

It is probably that the disciples wanted to stop the mothers bringing their children to Jesus because they knew he was exhausted and wanted to protect him; but it is also possible that they did not feel that the families concerned were of the right sort thinking, implying that ‘… contact with Jesus is not for those too young to make a responsible decision upon his claims …’ The Church has often done the same thing! I am delighted that, since Gareth’s birth, he has been fully accepted into the Methodist Church. As soon as he was old enough for basic instruction, he has received Holy Communion – and now – he is a regular communicant (at the age of just 11) every week. Wesley claimed that this sacrament is a ‘saving ordinance’ in that it opens one up to the means of grace – and this is my prayer for my son.

Nineham points out that the word used for Jesus response (and translated as ‘indignant’) is nowhere else used for our Lord. He goes on the paint a similar picture to the one offered by Barclay of the characteristics of ‘children’ encouraged by our Lord, but with a different emphasis. Nineham suggests it is NOT the innocence, humility or obedience of children, but the unselfconscious, receptive nature of children and their contentment to be dependent upon others’ care and bounty concluding that ‘… it is this sort of spirit that the kingdom of God must be received …’ This is because becoming a member of the Kingdom is not something that we earn or deserve – is a free and unconditional gift of God; it must simply be accepted inasmuch as it can never be deserved. Nineham is of the view that this passage has been included in the Gospel narrative because it implies this important truth and it implies an aspect of the cost of discipleship – the cost of putting pride aside.

Nineham also includes the interesting observation that confirms why this passage has become integral to our understanding of infant baptism (and why it is used at many of our services when this sacrament is celebrated). He suggests that the role of Jesus is taken on by the presiding minister offering the free gift of God’s grace to those who are powerless in the process. Nineham concludes that the early Church needed this passage in developing their practice and therefore also their theology of infant baptism.

Free – it is all free – because Christ has paid the price for us. Nothing new, but always a wonderful thought!