Why did they hinder the children?

[Houston E.]

I've pondered over a question now for sometime, and was hoping you guys could help me out...

Matthew 19
13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

My traditional understanding, i.e. what I was taught in Sunday School, was that the disciples didn't think Jesus needed to be bothered by the little ones. They didn't know any better.

My question is given that these were seemingly all Jews, all familiar with the covenant concept, then why in the world would the disciples hinder them from coming?
It seems they should be the very ones ushering them to Christ. I guess this perplexes me given the view of Acts 2:39, where it has been said that the Jews would have understood the language of Peter, "this promise is for you and your children...", since all were familiar with the covenant concept.

Hope I've been clear..

In His Grace.

 

[BobVigneault]

You are thinking too hard Pastor Trey. Look at the context of the passage. Verse 13 starts out with "Then...". Look at what they were doing just prior to the 'then'. Jesus and the disciples were discussing divorce. This is not a small issue and it's not a topic for children. They were involved in some pretty gritty conversation and not one that needed to be interrupted just because it was bedtime for the crumb-crunchers.

Jesus on the other hand chose this 'seemingly' delicate moment to demonstrate the importance of these little ones. The conversation, no matter how important, WAS interrupted for the children and he took the time to bless them and include them in the Kingdom.

 

[OPC'n]

Good answer, Bob. Also, if you look at Mark 10:15, the conversation continues and Christ says, 15 "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." I think this is just another way to say that we cannot take the kingdom of God it has to be given to us by God...regeneration. "No child can get anything unless it be given to him by his parents"...sort of thing... I think is what Christ is saying....along with what Bob said too.

-----Added 1/22/2009 at 10:52:00 EST-----

Besides that, think of all the adults the disciples tried to keep away from Christ! They weren't trying to keep them out of the covenant too.

 

[Houston E.]

You are thinking too hard Pastor Trey. Look at the context of the passage. Verse 13 starts out with "Then...". Look at what they were doing just prior to the 'then'. Jesus and the disciples were discussing divorce. This is not a small issue and it's not a topic for children. They were involved in some pretty gritty conversation and not one that needed to be interrupted just because it was bedtime for the crumb-crunchers.

Jesus on the other hand chose this 'seemingly' delicate moment to demonstrate the importance of these little ones. The conversation, no matter how important, WAS interrupted for the children and he took the time to bless them and include them in the Kingdom.

Thanks Bob for your response.....I don't know,
I could be making too much of it, but this seems to be a big passage for you guys, as well as, the inference surrounding the whole covenant concept. I could swallow it easier if it was some of the disciples were hindering other discples, etc.., but this is as Peter said before this event took place, "The Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

Is it really an issue of just, "They didn't know any better?"

 

[turmeric]

Thaks, Bob, it reminds me of the place in scripture, I think in Paul's letters, where he discussed divorce and says that God hates it because He wants godly seed. That would make the interlude for children fit in perfectly with the previous discussion, better than the disciples thought.

 

[OPC'n]

Houston,
why could you swallow it more if disciples were hindering other disciples? They hindered all sorts of people not just children. They hindered adults too. To hold to your thinking, you would have to have Scripture which shows the disciples only hindering children, but we see they did in fact hinder adults too.

 

[BobVigneault]

I hear what you're saying Pastor Trey. They say that to the man whose only tool is a hammer that every thing looks like a nail. I'm all for the historical-redemptive interpretation of scripture but I don't make the scriptures march to the beat of my theological drum. I'm not accusing anyone of doing such but there is certainly that risk when someone is trying to defend their slant.

I just don't see a deep theological doctrine in this passage. We certainly are to try and avoid building doctrine out of the narrative sections of scripture.

I just see Jesus expressing the importance of children in the scheme of things and commenting on the dependency and surrender that must accompany saving faith.

I'm happy with the homey devotional interpretation of this passage, in fact, I preached from it on Right to Life Sunday many years ago. I guess that's my slant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It was not uncommon for Rabbis to bless children. I think the moment has some value to demonstrate the importance of children but it also demonstrates the desire of some mothers to put their children at a spiritual advantage. I don't know if all of them were really sophisticated but I imagine they thought: "This man is very close to God, I love my child and want to have him bless my boy so that whatever he has might help the child."

It might be, frankly, that the disciples (men) are a bit annoyed by some Moms that want to bug Jesus with a blessing that they might consider to be unimportant.

I don't want to speculate too much more but I do find it very devotional to consider the fact that He did.

The Aaonic blessing is that the Lord would bless His people and includes a parallelism that builds up into all the dimensions that the Lord blesses with - He blesses, keeps, shines His face upon us, is gracious unto us, and gives us His peace.

Christ took little children and infants into His arms and, I believe, blessed them not merely with some sort of superstitious "I hope you have a good life" but blessed them with salvation.

Somebody asked: "What is a means of grace" in another thread.

A means of grace is something that holds forth Christ and is used of the Holy Spirit to build up and draw us unto Him. It is not a magic substance that is dispensed but is something that holds forth Christ.

All cavils aside about how Christ only blesses them and doesn't baptize them ignores the glorious fact that these children were blessed by our Lord.

 

[LawrenceU]

Bob,
You don't know how refreshing that post was. Thanks.

-----Added 1/22/2009 at 11:53:52 EST-----

Somebody asked: "What is a means of grace" in another thread.

A means of grace is something that holds forth Christ and is used of the Holy Spirit to build up and draw us unto Him. It is not a magic substance that is dispensed but is something that holds forth Christ.

That is the definition that I've head traditionally, and I would agree with it. I have too often in the past few years seen the use of 'means of grace' to imply much more than this definition.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I've pondered over a question now for sometime, and was hoping you guys could help me out...

Matthew 19
13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

My traditional understanding, i.e. what I was taught in Sunday School, was that the disciples didn't think Jesus needed to be bothered by the little ones. They didn't know any better.

My question is given that these were seemingly all Jews, all familiar with the covenant concept, then why in the world would the disciples hinder them from coming?
It seems they should be the very ones ushering them to Christ. I guess this perplexes me given the view of Acts 2:39, where it has been said that the Jews would have understood the language of Peter, "this promise is for you and your children...", since all were familiar with the covenant concept.

Hope I've been clear..

In His Grace.

My answer is simpler than Bob's. The reason it seems they should be the one's ushering them to Christ is because they should have in fact!

Well why weren't they? Because before these men could be the foundation stones of the church, they required a whole lot of dressing. When you realize that Jesus chose "the best" candidates for his work of preparation, and the best were dull and hard-hearted and "men of little faith," it should give each one of us hope that Jesus can change our own sinful attitudes.

I preached a sermon last year on Mark 10:1-16 called "Husbands, Wives, and Children of the Kingdom."

 

[lynnie]

I like kids, I have five of them and extras are here all the time. I am well able to "tune out" kid noise.

That said, Jesus was teaching. And I've been in meetings where the teaching was going on and my flesh wanted to bind and gag some little mouths that I think should have been back in the nursery or toddler room. I had to struggle to get past my resentment at the parents, whose little darlings made it near impossible to listen to the sermon. I would have been happy to see them all locked in a soundproof closet for the entire sermon.

I always saw that passage as a reflection not of the disciples hard hearts, but as their desire to listen to Jesus without distraction. He had to remind them of their priorites. I am sure the kids interrupted a GREAT sermon that day.

 

[Houston E.]

Thanks to all of you who replied...
I have some clarification now...and Bob, you're right...I think I was thinking too hard!

Thanks again..

 

[BobVigneault]

Not think hard.

 

[Rocketeer]

We certainly are to try and avoid building doctrine out of the narrative sections of scripture.

Depends... I usually build my belief in six-day creation on the narrative in Genesis 1, though. (And it would be stretching it to call that a dialog.)

Not to nag you, but just saying, sometimes it is justified to do just that.

All cavils aside about how Christ only blesses them and doesn't baptize them ignores the glorious fact that these children were blessed by our Lord.

Christ did not baptize at all:

1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), 3 he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.

(Emphasis added)

Not think hard.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Um...yes, I realize Christ did not baptize them. I didn't say He did.