Discussion Questions

David Bercot opens with Jesus’ words, “Blessed is he who is not offended because of me,” and then describes two common reactions: walking away from Jesus or “shopping” for a church that explains away His commands—where have you seen these two reactions play out around Jesus’ teachings on divorce, and how do you recognize them in your own instincts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus said, “Blessed is the one who isn’t offended because of me.” Where have you seen people either walk away from Jesus or “shop” for a church that explains away his teaching on divorce, and where do you see those reactions in yourself?

In Matthew 5:31–32, Bercot emphasizes that divorce “causes her to commit adultery” and that “whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery”—how does the idea of shared accountability for another person’s future choices challenge modern assumptions about individual autonomy and “I’m only responsible for myself”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Matthew 5:31–32, Jesus says divorce can lead others into adultery. How does that idea challenge the modern belief that “I’m only responsible for myself”?

Bercot argues that under the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24) divorce was always the husband’s act, never the wife’s, and he urges readers to confirm this by checking a concordance—how would accepting that claim reshape the way you interpret Jesus’ “exception clause,” and what objections immediately rise up in you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If under Moses (Deuteronomy 24) only the husband could initiate divorce, how would that change how you read Jesus’ “exception clause,” and what pushback do you feel right away?

Bercot asks whether Jesus expanded divorce permission or narrowed it, and insists Jesus “almost completely shut it,” leaving a narrow exception for husbands—what are the strongest reasons you’ve heard (or held) for believing Jesus broadened divorce rights, and how does Bercot’s argument pressure-test those reasons? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Do you think Jesus made divorce easier or harder to allow? What are your strongest reasons for thinking Jesus broadened divorce rights, and how does Bercot’s view test those reasons?

When Bercot quotes Jesus’ statement, “If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” and notes “Jesus makes no exception,” what tensions does this create with modern instincts about fairness, equal rights, and protection—what do you do with those tensions if you take Jesus’ words at face value? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus says a woman who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and Bercot says there’s no exception. If you take that literally, what feels unfair or troubling today, and how do you deal with that?

Bercot highlights that most modern divorces are filed by wives (including his observations from thousands of title-law cases) and criticizes churches for treating “single moms” as spiritual widows while assuming fathers “dump their wives and children”—how should a church pursue truth and justice in divorce situations without falling into stereotypes, sentimentality, or automatic suspicion of one side? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a church seek truth and fairness in divorce cases without assuming the man is always guilty or the woman is always the victim?

In discussing 1 Corinthians 7, Bercot argues that Paul does not authorize divorce and that the Greek word is “leave/depart” rather than “divorce,” insisting apostles do not contradict their King—how should Christians handle cases where popular commentators claim Paul created a new category of divorce, and what does loyalty to Jesus as “King and Lawgiver” require in how we interpret Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In 1 Corinthians 7, Bercot says Paul means “leave,” not “divorce,” and that the apostles wouldn’t contradict Jesus. How should Christians respond when teachers say Paul added a new reason for divorce, and what does loyalty to Jesus require in how we read Scripture?

Jesus grounds His divorce teaching in creation: “the two shall become one flesh… what God has joined together, let not man separate,” and Bercot contrasts modern “marriage partnership” language with his “corporation vs. partnership” analogy—what practical differences would it make in how spouses view identity, rights, and sacrifice if marriage is treated as “one new entity” rather than a cooperative contract? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus says marriage makes two people “one flesh” and that humans shouldn’t separate what God joined. How would marriage look different if spouses saw it as “one new entity” instead of a contract between two separate people?

Bercot calls marriage “a heavenly institution,” says “God does the joining,” and claims eternal realities attach to marriage even if marriage isn’t eternal—what does this imply about God’s character and purposes in marriage, and how does it confront the way modern Christians treat divorce primarily as a personal happiness issue? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God is the one who joins a marriage and it has spiritual meaning beyond this life, what does that say about God’s purpose for marriage? How does that challenge the idea that divorce is mainly about personal happiness?

Bercot argues the church changed when “the world changed,” concluding, “The churches have shown quite clearly who their real master is,” and he cites data that “born-again” Christians have divorce rates as high or higher than society (even higher than atheists in some comparisons)—what diagnoses does this force on evangelical ideas about grace, assurance, and the indwelling Spirit, and what concrete changes would be necessary for a church to demonstrate that Jesus—not Caesar or culture—is its Master? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the church started following culture, and he points to high divorce rates among “born-again” Christians. What does that suggest is wrong with common evangelical ideas about grace, assurance, and the Holy Spirit, and what would a church need to change to show Jesus—not culture—is really its Master?