Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 2

The lesson highlights Origen’s view that “the law has dominion over a man as long as it lives,” and then argues the Law “died” with the coming of Jesus and the gospel age—what do you think it says about God’s wisdom that He would establish a covenant that would later become obsolete, and what would have to be true about God’s character for that to be good rather than arbitrary?

Another way to ask: What does it say about God’s wisdom if He made a covenant that He knew would later be replaced? What would God have to be like for that choice to be good and not random?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests God’s wisdom is seen in giving the Mosaic Law for a real, temporary purpose, while also planning a transition to Christ and the “gospel age.” For this to be good rather than arbitrary, God must be consistent: the Law was “good” but “inadequate,” and its ending serves a larger redemptive goal rather than canceling goodness.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot states Paul’s point: “The law of Moses is unable to save or justify… The law was not evil. It was simply inadequate.”
The law’s dominion is limited: it has authority “as long as it lives,” and it “ceases to give commands to the dead.”
The lesson ties Paul’s argument to Jesus: “Jesus had declared the law and the prophets were until John,” so its authority had a designed endpoint.
It says, “with the coming of Jesus, the law died, and the gospel age or kingdom age began,” implying a purposeful covenantal shift.
Even when ending it, Paul “does not deprive the law of its dignity,” but still honors its former “power” and binding authority.

Discussion Follow-ups How does calling the Law “good but inadequate” shape how we read the Old Testament? What does it mean to respect the Law’s role without treating it as the final covenant?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 2 of 10