Discussion Questions

David argues that to recover early Christian belief you must “apply [New Testament] passages very literally and very seriously,” using what he calls a “title lawyer approach”; as a group, what parts of Jesus’ divorce sayings become harder to evade when you refuse to assume what He “must have meant,” and what assumptions do you notice yourself wanting to import anyway? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we take Jesus’ words on divorce very literally, what parts get hardest to explain away? What extra ideas do you catch yourself adding about what Jesus “must have meant”?

In Genesis 2:24 David contrasts the Bible’s “one flesh” language with modern talk of “marriage partnership”; how does thinking in terms of “one entity” (rather than two semi-independent partners) reshape what you believe God is doing in marriage, and what does it threaten in the way many of us approach marriage today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does seeing marriage as “one flesh”—almost like one new whole—change what you think God is doing in marriage? What common modern views of marriage does that challenge?

When David reads Deuteronomy 24:1–4, he stresses both the ambiguity of “uncleanness” and the one-sidedness of the divorce procedure (a man divorcing his wife, not vice versa); what do you think his headship-based rationale is trying to protect about God’s order, and where do you feel resistance to that framework? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Deuteronomy 24, why do you think David says the unclear word “uncleanness” and the husband-only divorce process protect God’s order? What about that way of thinking do you push back against?

David points out that Deuteronomy 24 mainly forbids a man taking back a divorced wife after she marries another, and then he reads Malachi 2 (“He hates divorce,” “dealt treacherously”); what does this combination suggest about God’s character toward covenant-breaking, and how does it challenge the idea that “God allowed it, so God is fine with it”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do Deuteronomy 24 and Malachi 2 together say about how God feels about breaking a covenant? How does that challenge the idea that “if God allowed it, He must be okay with it”?

In Matthew 5:31–32 David highlights that Jesus gives an exception for divorcing a wife (“except porneia”) but gives no exception for marrying a divorced woman (“whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”); how does that asymmetry land on you, and what real-life scenarios does it immediately create tension with? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you react to Jesus allowing an exception for divorcing a wife but not giving an exception for marrying a divorced woman? What real situations does that make feel difficult or confusing?

David repeatedly asks, “Does Jesus say anything about a wife divorcing her husband?” and argues Jesus did not expand divorce rights to women in Matthew 5 or 19; how does his argument confront modern instincts about “fairness,” and what do you think the early Jewish hearers would have assumed Jesus meant in that moment? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does David’s claim that Jesus did not give women new divorce rights challenge our modern idea of “fairness”? What do you think the Jewish crowd back then would have thought Jesus meant?

In Mark 10 Jesus includes, “If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” and David connects that to Roman law; what does that detail reveal about how the early church had to live as a minority culture under pagan legal structures, and where do you see parallels with Christians adapting to modern legal norms? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Jesus mentioning a woman divorcing her husband (Mark 10) show about Christians living under Roman laws that weren’t Christian? Where do you see similar pressure for Christians to fit today’s legal or cultural rules?

David presents the early Christian consensus (Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Apostolic Constitutions) that remarriage after divorce equals adultery and could result in suspension from communion; what does that level of church discipline suggest about early Christian fear of God and seriousness about obedience, and how does it expose what many churches today treat as “pastoral flexibility”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it tell you that early Christians often treated remarriage after divorce as adultery and even barred people from communion? How does that compare with how many churches today handle divorce and remarriage?

Several early sources David quotes (Hermas, Apostolic Constitutions, Tertullian) go beyond “permission” and describe an obligation to put away an ongoing adulterous wife—yet forbid the husband from remarrying and urge receiving her back if she repents; how does that combination (severity toward ongoing sin + openness to repentance + no remarriage) challenge modern categories like “boundaries,” “closure,” and “moving on”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does this idea hit you: separate from an unfaithful spouse, don’t remarry, and take them back if they repent? How does that challenge modern ideas like “boundaries,” “closure,” and “moving on”?

David criticizes the modern theory that Matthew’s “except porneia” only refers to the Jewish betrothal period, and he argues it would imply the church was in darkness for 1,800 years and that parts of the New Testament “don’t apply to us”; what do you see at stake in his warning about creating “ingenious theories” to escape hard texts, and how might that same impulse show up in the way we handle other uncomfortable teachings of Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does David think it’s dangerous to create clever explanations to avoid Jesus’ hard teachings (like “except porneia”)? Where might we do the same thing with other uncomfortable things Jesus said?