Discussion Questions

Stephen says the Old Testament is “God working with people who have fallen very far…working with them where they’re at” and moving them “up a hill” until the Messiah can come—what does that view suggest about God’s patience, strategy, and purpose in giving laws that were “for your good” rather than simply demands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God worked with people “where they were at” and slowly moved them toward the Messiah, what does that say about why God gave laws that were “for your good” and not just strict orders?

The speaker argues we shouldn’t “read the Bible as a flat book,” meaning the Old Testament is not “equal to the New” in how it functions for Christians—what specific problems arise if someone does read it flatly, and what changes (practically) when you “read the Old Testament through the New”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What goes wrong if you treat every part of the Bible as the same for Christians, and what changes in real life when you read the Old Testament through what Jesus taught in the New Testament?

He points to Deuteronomy 20’s war restrictions (offer surrender, don’t destroy unnecessarily) as “clues” toward non-resistance—how do those limits reshape the usual assumption that Old Testament war is simply God endorsing maximum force? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do the war limits in Deuteronomy 20 (like offering surrender and avoiding needless destruction) change the idea that God was simply supporting maximum violence in Old Testament wars?

In the conquest narratives, Stephen highlights the Gibeonites: they hear, respond, and are spared even after deception—how does that example challenge a simplistic reading of “God wanted to kill everyone,” and what might it reveal about God’s interest in repentance even among Israel’s enemies? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the story of the Gibeonites being spared challenge the idea that “God wanted everyone killed,” and what might it show about God caring about repentance even for enemies?

The speaker claims that when Israel was “closest to God,” God often caused enemies to “fall on each other” rather than requiring Israel to kill—what picture of God’s preferred way of delivering His people emerges from that observation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God often made Israel’s enemies turn on each other when Israel was closest to Him, what does that suggest about how God prefers to rescue His people?

Stephen distinguishes “non-violent” from “non-resistant,” saying non-resistance means, “I’m willing to lay my life down,” and that non-violent resistance can still create friction and fighting—where do you see your instincts landing between resistance and laying down your life, and what do you fear would happen if you practiced the second? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Do you lean more toward fighting back or toward being willing to suffer and even die without fighting, and what scares you about choosing the second option?

He calls it a “category mistake” to label God “violent,” because God owns life and doesn’t “violate” like humans do—what objections immediately rise in you to that reasoning, and what would you need to resolve (about God’s rights, justice, and our moral language) to accept or reject it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When someone says it’s wrong to call God “violent” because God owns life in a way humans don’t, what problems do you have with that, and what would you need to decide about God’s rights and justice to accept it?

Stephen suggests that if Israel had obeyed, God would have driven out the Canaanites “slowly” with insects/animals, leading to “more conversion, less violence, less bloodshed”—how does this claim reframe the violence of the conquest as tied to human disobedience, and what does it imply about how God prefers His purposes to be accomplished? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If obedience would have meant God driving out the Canaanites slowly with less killing, how does that connect the conquest violence to human disobedience, and what does it suggest about how God likes to get things done?

The speaker says the Old Testament hints (Isaiah/Micah: swords into plows; animals at peace; scattered Proverbs/Lamentations themes) point forward to what happens “when you actually become a Christian and you start to lay down your weapons”—what do those prophetic images demand of a Christian community that claims Jesus has come but still keeps weapons (literal or cultural) close at hand? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the prophets picture peace and people laying down weapons, what should that mean for a Christian community that says Jesus has come but still holds onto weapons—real or cultural?

In his appeal to Romans 12–13, Stephen insists we must “watch the pronouns”: Romans 12 is “you” (Christians, peace, overcoming evil by love), Romans 13:1–7 is “they” (government, sword), then back to “you” (love)—what concrete loyalties or roles in your life blur that “two groups” distinction, and what would you have to change if you concluded “the same person can’t do those two things”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans 12 is about how Christians should act and Romans 13 is about what government does with the sword, what parts of your life mix those roles, and what would you change if you believed one person can’t do both?