Discussion Questions

The speaker calls divorce “an unavoidable rite of passage” and then says, “What a tragedy”; what do those phrases reveal about what God values in covenant, and what does it expose about what our churches have come to accept as normal? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When he calls divorce “unavoidable” but also “a tragedy,” what does that say about what God cares about in a covenant? What does it show that churches have started to treat as normal?

The speaker highlights Pew data and asks, “How can that be?” that people “at least fairly certain to believe in God are divorced or separated”; what possible explanations fit with the speaker’s later emphasis on “hardness of heart” and “justifying yourselves before men, but God knows your heart” (Luke 16)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why might people who say they believe in God still get divorced, according to ideas like “hardness of heart” and God knowing our true motives (Luke 16)? What might they be telling themselves to look right to others?

In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus answers the Pharisees by quoting creation (“male and female,” “one flesh”) rather than debating Deuteronomy; what does that move teach about God’s intentions, and how should it shape the way Christians appeal to Scripture when looking for permission structures? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does Jesus point back to creation (“male and female,” “one flesh”) instead of arguing about Deuteronomy? How should that affect how Christians use the Bible when they’re looking for “permission” to do something?

The speaker equates “hardness of heart” with sin and calls Moses’ divorce allowance “at the very least…a compromise”; what are some modern Christian “compromises” we justify the same way, and what would it look like to let “from the beginning it was not so” confront them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are some ways Christians today make “compromises” that we excuse like Moses’ divorce allowance? What would change if we let “it was not so from the beginning” challenge those choices?

The speaker notes Jesus’ warning that divorce/remarriage “commits adultery” and may “cause her to commit adultery”; how do early Christians—who assumed Jesus’ words carried real authority—likely hear this in daily life, and what parts of that collide with modern evangelical assurance and “God just wants you happy” instincts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would early Christians, who took Jesus’ authority seriously, react to his warning that divorce and remarriage is adultery? What about that clashes with today’s “God just wants you happy” attitude?

The speaker is struck that Adam speaks the “leave…be joined…one flesh” line and wonders how Adam knew about the rib, suggesting Adam before sin was “to a certain degree divine”; whether or not you agree with his speculation, what is he trying to protect about God’s original design for humanity and marriage? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Even if you don’t agree with his idea about Adam being partly divine, what is he trying to protect about God’s original plan for people and marriage? Why does that original design matter to him?

Using the Play-Doh illustration, the speaker insists that God supernaturally joins two into “purple,” and that “to manually try to separate them, it’s impossible because God put them together”; how does this claim change the way you think about marriage as primarily spiritual rather than romantic, therapeutic, or contractual? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God truly joins two people into one and you can’t really pull them apart, how does that change your view of marriage? Does it make marriage feel more spiritual than romantic, healing, or like a legal deal?

The speaker argues Scripture doesn’t detail wedding procedures, then proposes four elements: intention, “leaving and cleaving,” public declaration, and God’s miracle; which of those four do you think the early church would have most emphasized, and where do you think modern Christians reverse the order (for example, over-trusting “vows” or the state)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Out of the four parts he lists (intention, leaving and cleaving, public declaration, God’s miracle), which do you think the early church stressed most? Where do Christians today mix up the order, like trusting vows or the government too much?

In 1 Corinthians 7, the speaker says you can’t “make them stay,” but also implies separation doesn’t automatically make divorce the only option; how should “God has called us to peace” be held together with “remain unmarried or be reconciled,” and what does that tension demand from a local church in messy real situations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a church hold together “God has called us to peace” with “stay unmarried or be reconciled” in real, messy separations? What does that mean the church should actually do for people in those situations?

The speaker claims marriage “is supposed to reflect Christ and his church” and says unbelievers view the church through our marriages; if your marriage (or your view of marriage) functioned as someone’s primary picture of Christ’s covenant love, what specific habits, power dynamics, and repentance patterns would need to change this month? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If your marriage (or your view of marriage) was someone’s main picture of Christ’s love for the church, what would need to change this month? What habits, control issues, and repentance would need to look different?