Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

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?

Another 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?

Direct Answer Accepting Bercot’s claim would mean reading Jesus’ exception clause as a restriction placed on husbands, not as a general permission for either spouse to divorce. The transcript anticipates objections rooted in modern expectations of equal divorce rights and asks readers to verify the Old Testament pattern.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says, “God never allowed a wife to divorce her husband,” calling it a “new thought” for many.
He instructs readers: “please get out Strong’s… and look up divorce,” claiming “every reference… concerns a husband divorcing his wife.”
He cites Israel Abrahams: “Divorce was always from first to last in Jewish law the husband's act.”
He notes the biblical terminology: divorce as “the sending away of a wife… We never read of the sending away of a husband.”
He later argues Jesus left “a narrow exception for only the husbands,” not opening the door for wives.

Discussion Follow-ups What assumptions about fairness or modern legal categories make this hard to accept? What would count as “honest research” in verifying Bercot’s claim?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10