Mark
10:2-16
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.
I know
we are dependent on Barclay for much of what we write, but I think we need to
be reminded that this is one of the main purposes of this exercise; and that is
to let this wise biblical scholar inform us as we journey 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 20th
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 14) 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment