The Lord, the God of Israel, stands up for the widow and the fatherless, vulnerable categories because they lacked the nurture and protection of a family. The family was the chief source of protection and nurture in that culture. Jesus defends people in these categories of people who, then and now, stand in need of protection – women and children. The religious leaders opposing Jesus seek to expose him as an opponent of the Mosaic law. Defending himself, Jesus answers their question with a question of his own: “What did Moses command you?” They have to say, “Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” The distinction between the two verbs – command and permit – is crucial. Jesus’s enemies are forced to admit explicitly that divorce was not something that Moses “commanded” but merely “allowed.”

Jesus goes back to origins, the first marriage in the Garden of Eden. God intended that the first couple should live respectfully together. Jesus refers not to the passage about the woman created out of the man’s rib, but rather to the divine declaration, “the two shall become one flesh.” “Becoming one flesh” did not refer to sexual union, but rather to the woman leaving her own family to become part of the man’s family. By divine intent, marriage therefore is primarily about the companionship of a woman with a man.

We today tend to hear Jesus’s teaching on marriage in terms of what it prohibits – divorce – rather than what it commends – “the two of them become “one flesh,” the most intimate expression of a companionship embracing the totality of life. We are not therefore surprised at the conclusion of the discussion that Jesus had with the religious leaders who opposed him: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

What about the other group needing protection – children? When his disciples prevented children from coming to him, he became indignant. “Let the children come to me. Do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Why is a child a good symbol membership in the kingdom? The Australian biblical scholar, Brendan Byrne (Mark, 160) puts it well: “Children cannot earn, or perform any useful work. Any benefit they receive can only come to them as a pure gift. If, then, children are the paradigm recipients of the Kingdom, this means that it comes to everyone as pure, unmerited gift from God.”