Scripture has numerous themes designed to shape our thinking. How we think about and care for children is one example, an important example at that.

Historic incidents of cruelty to children

Moses was born in Egypt into a situation where Pharaoh had commanded that all Israelite male babies be put to death (Ex 1.16-22). The purpose was clear: to diminish the numbers of Israelites.

Fast forward to the birth of Christ. Herod, acting in the same spirit as Pharaoh, ordered that males younger than 2 years of age in and around Bethlehem were to be put to death (Matt 2.16). The gospel writer quotes Jer 31.15; “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” History indicates that, when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, according to Dr Alfred Edersheim, children, amongst others, were ‘piteously slaughtered’ to reduce his burden of removing them to Babylon. See my notes on Jer 40: www.biblenotes.org.uk/old-testament/Jeremiah/40/

Ancient cultures were well-known for mistreatment of children. In fact, Israel had set a standard far above that of ancient Gentile cultures. When Israel turned form God’s ways, one evidence was that she reverted to the introduction of child sacrifice, learned from the surrounding nations. 2 Kings 21.6 provides one example.

A better way!

Jesus Christ set an even higher standard. He did not merely criticise (whether implicitly or explicitly) common practice in Judea, He set a new standard, treating children as real people, with value and dignity.

The early Church, as it started to engage with Gentile cultures, followed this example. The Church council in Jerusalem referred to the common practice of exposure (infanticide); Acts 15.19-20. (Some Bible translations seem to obscure this!) See www.biblenotes.org.uk/new-testament/Acts/15/ with my comment: ‘We must conclude that, in this respect, the early Church stood apart from its host culture in relation to this practice.’

Christian catacombs are said to include the remains of children adopted by Christians, sometimes in large numbers – this is further evidence of Christians rescuing many who were discarded by others. Early Church history refers to this practice (e.g: Tertullian).

And Paul in 1 Cor 12.22 comments that those who seems to be weak are actually indispensable. Without over-thinking the wording here, we must conclude that children are, therefore, essential to the well-being of a local Church.

Andy Glover, meditating on this phrase, refers to his ‘kingdom’ emphasis. He refers to transformation within all sectors of society; something which I have gradually grown to understand and have written about before. (Are our churches ‘charismatic lite’? – Andy Glover – Fresh Streams)

This challenges the traditional and dominant view across evangelicalism for the past century, that the sacred- secular divide is to be maintained and reinforced. This reflects a ‘dualistic’ approach to the spiritual and material ‘worlds,’ which I believe is not correct.

The proper approach starts with, I think, the most important phrase ever written – ‘the word became flesh’ (John 1.14).

The Lord Jesus ascended in bodily form into Heaven; the man in the glory; with the promise that all who are ‘in Him’ shall be ‘with Him.’ Their future existence will not be purely ‘spiritual,’ lacking the physical. There will be a new heaven AND a new earth. Isaiah and Peter (ie; OT and NT) refer to this.

Therefore, today, in daily life, we eat and drink, we rise and tire. We experience physical reality and seek to invade all spaces with the gospel of Christ. I read of a Church in Essex, UK, with raised vegetable beds adjacent to its building, described as ‘a fun way of learning to grow your own veg.’

Just as Christ overturned the tables of money changers in the temple area; and challenged the scribes and Pharisees who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, but not the man, so we seek to bring His kingdom into all the dark places of the world.

I had long struggled with Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. Why did he refer to Abraham and Joseph and Moses, but only mentioned David very briefly, and nothing of Joshua and Samuel?

Then I realised; Stephen answered the allegations made against him. The Sanhedrin heard ‘false witnesses’ say: “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

The phrase ‘this holy place’ betrayed a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. The holy place was, in reality, wherever God was present with His people; Abraham in Mesopotamia, Joseph in Egypt, Moses in the desert. The people had become obsessed with ‘this holy place.’ In the words of Stephen, they ‘always resist the Holy Spirit’ (v51). Their focus was entirely wrong – a land, Israel; a city, Jerusalem; a building, the temple. Actually God calls us to know Him through Jesus Christ. Location is not a problem.

The people that Stephen referred to, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, enjoyed God’s presence and blessing outside ‘this holy place.’ We might add Shadrach and Meshach and Abednego to this list; they knew the presence of the fourth person in the furnace, one ‘like a son of the gods.’ Under God’s sovereign influence, Mordecai and Esther similarly introduced the feast of Purim across a pagan empire (Esth 9.29-32).

Jesus sent His followers, the Twelve and the Seventy (Luke chapters 9 and 10) as sheep into the midst of wolves. He instructed them not to expect a warm welcome everywhere. Yet the message of life and hope is delivered to draw many to Christ.

The expectation from this chapter is that (1) the people of God will expect to find themselves in a hostile situation and (2) the people of God will bring blessing into that environment.