Discussion Questions

David says God “didn’t reveal His perfect or ultimate will to humans until the time of Christ,” then cites divorce, polygamy, war, and Israel’s king as things God “allowed” or even “commanded”; how does that claim reshape the way you read Old Testament narratives of violence without either excusing sin or accusing God of evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God didn’t show his perfect will until Jesus, and only “allowed” things like war, polygamy, and divorce, how should that change how you read violent Old Testament stories without calling sin “okay” or calling God evil?

He argues that people in the Old Testament could be “acting in faith and righteousness because God had not forbidden the things that they were doing,” even when those actions included bloodshed; what does that imply about the relationship between righteousness and moral clarity in different stages of revelation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Old Testament people could be faithful even while doing things God hadn’t forbidden yet (even killing), what does that say about being “righteous” when people don’t have clear moral teaching?

David says, “He is the Lord of the universe… and He doesn’t owe us any explanation,” using the analogy of parents allowing children some leeway; where do you feel resistance to that framing, and what does your resistance reveal about your expectations for God’s accountability to you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When David says God doesn’t owe us explanations (like parents giving kids some freedom), what bothers you about that, and what does it show about what you think God should answer to you for?

In describing early Christian atonement, David insists Christ’s blood “doesn’t appease an angry God” and “doesn’t say anything about changing the Father”; what picture of God’s character is being defended here, and how would early Christians have heard modern “the Father needed to be satisfied” language? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ blood doesn’t calm an angry Father or change the Father, what kind of God is David defending, and how might early Christians react to the idea that “the Father had to be satisfied”?

David contrasts “pagan” sacrifice (placating an angry god) with “heroic sacrifice” (laying down one’s life to save another), using the lifeboat illustration; where have you subtly absorbed the pagan model in your own instincts about God, sin, and forgiveness—even if you reject it doctrinally? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you still think of God like a “pagan” god who needs to be paid off, instead of a God shown through self-giving sacrifice—even if you’d never say it out loud?

He says Old Testament sacrifices were a “pedagogue” with a twofold purpose: pointing to an innocent victim’s death to free us from “Satan, sin, and death,” and pointing to the “healing and sanctifying power” of Jesus’ blood; how does that shift the center of salvation from “getting guilt removed” to “being healed,” and what would have to change in how you pursue holiness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation is more about being healed and made holy than just having guilt removed, how would that change the way you try to grow in holiness?

David quotes Hebrews to argue the sacrifices “couldn’t take away sin” and that God had “no pleasure” in them, even rejecting the idea of a “vampire God”; what do those claims demand you stop assuming about God’s emotional posture toward sinners and toward punishment? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God didn’t enjoy Old Testament sacrifices and they couldn’t remove sin, what should you stop assuming about how God feels toward sinners and toward punishment?

On Isaiah 53:10, David says the Septuagint reads, “The Lord is willing to cleanse him of his wound,” the opposite of “it pleased the Lord to bruise him,” and he attributes the Masoretic reading to scribal/copyist error; what are the theological and practical stakes of choosing one textual tradition over another, and how might early Christians’ use of the Septuagint have shaped their atonement assumptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Isaiah 53:10 might mean either “God was pleased to bruise him” or “God wanted to heal him,” what really matters in choosing one wording over the other, and how would early Christians using the Septuagint shape what they believed about atonement?

David rejects “imputed righteousness” yet defends an initial, baptismal justification “apart from our works,” followed by a second phase where remaining justified depends on fruit-bearing (John 15) and “justified by works” (James); how does this two-phase framework confront common evangelical assurance categories, and where does it make you feel either threatened or clarified? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If justification starts at baptism apart from works but then depends on bearing fruit, how does that challenge common “once saved, always saved” confidence, and does it make you feel warned or helped?

He quotes William Law: “God only expects from us the love and obedience that a fallen human is capable of giving, but He does expect that level,” then later says early Christians emphasized “lifestyle over theology” and that whole churches—not just monks—must live the Sermon on the Mount; what specific practices (entertainment, war, modest dress, divorce/remarriage, two kingdoms, etc.) would your church need to change to match that expectation, and what would you personally have to risk to obey it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God expects the real love and obedience a fallen person can give, and whole churches should live the Sermon on the Mount, what would your church need to change (like entertainment, war, sex ethics, divorce), and what would you personally have to risk to obey?