Discussion Questions

Paul says the law has dominion “as long as he lives,” then notes the Greek could also mean “as long as it lives”; how does each reading change the way you think about being released from the Mosaic Law, and why might Paul intentionally allow both senses? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says the law rules “as long as he lives,” but it could also mean “as long as it lives.” How does each meaning change how you think about being set free from the Mosaic Law, and why might Paul leave it open on purpose?

The teacher quotes John Chrysostom on Paul using *anthropos* (“man” meaning “human”) and then critiques modern sensitivity about the word “man”; what does this discussion reveal about how early Christians viewed honor, gender language, and “finding fault,” and where do you see similar dynamics today in the church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the talk about the word anthropos (“man” meaning “human”) show about how early Christians thought about honor, gender words, and looking for things to complain about? Where do you see similar issues in churches today?

In the marriage illustration, the teacher defines “the law of her husband” as headship/authority in the home (while noting wives also set household “rules”); how does Paul’s analogy force modern Christians to face uncomfortable assumptions about authority, submission, and the way we talk about marriage? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Paul’s marriage example, the teacher says “the law of her husband” means the husband’s authority at home. How does this comparison challenge the way modern Christians think and talk about authority, submission, and marriage?

The group discusses when the Mosaic Law “died” (John the Baptist, Jesus’ ministry, the cross, AD 70), and the teacher calls it a “transition”; what do these proposed “end points” imply about God’s patience, the pace of covenant change, and how He deals with people who don’t fully grasp His new work yet? JumpstartAnother way to ask: People suggest different times the Mosaic Law “ended” (John the Baptist, Jesus’ ministry, the cross, AD 70), and the teacher calls it a transition. What do these options teach us about God’s patience and how He slowly brings in a new covenant while some people still don’t understand it?

Using Origen’s argument about Jerusalem’s destruction (no temple, altar, sacrifices, stoning, feasts “in the place”), the teacher says God made it “crystal clear” the old covenant was over; what does this suggest about how God uses history and judgment to teach theology, and how should that shape the way Christians interpret major disruptions in the church today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen says Jerusalem’s destruction made it obvious the old covenant was over because the temple and sacrifices were gone. What does that say about how God uses history and judgment to teach, and how should we read major church disruptions today?

Paul’s statement that remarriage while a spouse lives makes a woman “called an adulteress” is treated as an “established fact” in the early church rather than a new instruction; how does the teacher use this to challenge modern Christian divorce/remarriage practices, and what pressures might cause churches to reverse what earlier Christians saw as non-negotiable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The teacher says the early church already saw remarriage while a spouse is alive as adultery, not as a new rule Paul invented. How does he use that to challenge modern divorce/remarriage, and what pressures might make churches change what used to be seen as non-negotiable?

The teacher argues Paul is appealing to the “law of Christ” / “law of nature” rooted in Eden and restored by Jesus (citing Matthew 5 and Mark 10); how does that claim confront the common evangelical instinct to treat moral demands as mostly “Old Testament,” and what does it imply about creation-order ethics? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The teacher says Paul appeals to the “law of Christ” or “law of nature” from Eden, brought back by Jesus. How does this challenge the idea that strict moral demands are mostly “Old Testament,” and what does it say about right and wrong being built into creation?

Theodoret is quoted: Moses permitted divorce “because of hardness of heart,” but creation established one man/one woman; how does that early Christian reasoning affect how you read “permissions” in Scripture—what do you do with commands that God allows but does not love? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Theodoret says Moses allowed divorce because people were hard-hearted, even though God’s design was one man and one woman. How should that shape how you read parts of the Bible where God allows something He doesn’t really want?

Paul’s pastoral aim is to free Jewish Christians who felt guilty about Sabbath/pork and to stop them from forcing Gentiles to keep the law; where do you see modern equivalents of “cultural holiness” becoming a guilt-producer or a boundary-marker, and how can a church distinguish between helpful culture and binding conscience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul wanted to free Jewish Christians from guilt about things like Sabbath and pork, and stop them from forcing Gentiles to follow those rules. What are modern examples of “cultural holiness” that creates guilt or divides people, and how can a church tell the difference between helpful traditions and rules that bind people’s consciences?

The teacher highlights Paul’s “switch”: first the law dies, then “you have become dead to the law,” and connects this with serving in “newness of the Spirit” vs “oldness of the letter”; what would “oldness of the letter” look like in a contemporary church that claims to be New Covenant, and what specific practices would show “newness” that actually produces the “righteous deeds of the saints”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says both “the law died” and “you died to the law,” and he contrasts “newness of the Spirit” with “oldness of the letter.” In a church today, what would “oldness of the letter” look like, and what actions would show real “newness” that leads to holy living?