Verse 5. The commands of Scripture/Moses were given as accommodations. They should not be confused with God's final or original intent.
Verse 6 is often trotted out as a proof text for heterosexual marriage. However, this passage is not answering "who can or can't get married." It's answering the question of divorce to religious leaders who are trying to trick him. To twist this passage into a for-all-time prohibition on same-sex relationships would be like using 1 Timothy 4:13 ("Until I arrive, pay attention to reading") to argue against video games.
Verse 10: "Inside the house…" Jesus' ministry had public-facing and private-facing aspects. Let us all desire to go "inside the house" with Jesus.
We should be careful not to disconnect Jesus' teaching on divorce from the immediately proceeding teaching on children. Men were the primary (although not sole) initiators of divorce in Jesus' day. To divorce a woman would financially ruin her, and if he abandoned the children, there were no mechanisms in place to support them. If a woman were to initiate divorce, it was likely because she had some independent financial means—and could potentially be abandoning children as well. Again, we have to be careful not to assume that Jesus' one-sentence teaching here is applicable to all possible situations. That asks the text too much. That said, at least in Mark's mind, Jesus' teaching on divorce connects directly to the protection of children.
Questions for reflection
-
Jesus says Moses gave the divorce commandment "because of your unyielding hearts." What other biblical commands might be accommodations rather than God's final intent?
-
How does reading the divorce teaching and the children teaching as one connected passage change how you understand both?
-
"Inside the house, the disciples asked him again about this." What does it look like for you to go "inside the house" with Jesus—to move from the public questions to the private, deeper ones?