Discussion Questions

Dean says he wants to “clear the smokescreen” modern Protestant/evangelical churches have over the Old Testament when they justify “unbiblical behavior” from it—what specific “smokescreens” have you personally absorbed, and how have they shaped the way you interpret Jesus’ commands about enemies and retaliation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “smokescreens” have you picked up that use the Old Testament to excuse wrong behavior? How have they shaped how you hear Jesus’ teachings about enemies and getting back at people?

The lesson’s central principle is that God uses “ungodly, wicked, and idolatrous nations and kings” to accomplish His will, yet that use does not imply God’s pleasure or blessing; how does that reframe the way you talk about your own nation’s military victories, “Christian” political causes, or national myths of being “chosen”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God can use wicked nations and leaders without approving of them, how should that change the way you talk about your country’s wars, “Christian” politics, or stories about being “chosen”?

Dean highlights Romans 13 as written under Nero and still calling the ruler “the minister (diakonos) of God”; what does it do to your assumptions about God’s sovereignty and human government if the “minister of God” can be someone the early church viewed as possibly the Antichrist? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Romans 13 calls the ruler “God’s servant” even when Nero was in power. How does that challenge what you assume about God being in control and about human government?

In Jeremiah 25, God calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant” and then promises to punish him for his iniquity and pride; what does this reveal about God’s character—especially His justice and His willingness to judge the very instruments He uses? JumpstartAnother way to ask: God calls Nebuchadnezzar “my servant” but later punishes him for pride and sin. What does that show about God’s justice and how He treats the people He uses?

Isaiah 10 portrays Assyria as “the rod of mine anger,” yet “he meaneth not so” and simply wants to destroy nations; where do you see the temptation today to interpret national ambition, vengeance, or fear as “God’s work,” and how does Isaiah’s description warn against that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see people today calling national goals, revenge, or fear “God’s work”? How does Isaiah 10 warn us not to confuse our motives with God’s plans?

God calls Cyrus “my shepherd” and even “my anointed” (messiah-language) while Cyrus remains a pagan ruler; what does this do to the way you reserve spiritual language for “our side,” and how might early Christians have heard that compared with how modern Christians talk about leaders they like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: God calls Cyrus “my shepherd” and “my anointed” even though he was a pagan. How does that challenge the way we use spiritual words mainly for leaders “on our side”?

Dean describes his frustration with liberal pacifists who “mix up the two kingdoms” through political agendas, and conservative evangelicals who “ignore the teachings of Jesus” by postponing them; where do you recognize yourself gravitating toward one of those two escapes, and what specific teaching of Jesus feels most costly to obey without an escape hatch? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Do you lean more toward using politics to solve everything, or toward putting off Jesus’ hard teachings? Which teaching of Jesus feels most expensive or risky for you to obey right now?

The lesson argues there is “no just war theology” in Old or New Testament or the first 300 years of the church, and that “just war” develops with Ambrose/Augustine; how should that historical claim affect the level of confidence modern Christians have when they call a present war “biblical” or “just”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “just war” wasn’t taught in the Bible or the early church but developed later, how sure should Christians be when they call a war today “biblical” or “just”?

Dean quotes Canon 12 of Nicaea (325) treating Christians who returned to the military as needing years of repentance before communion; what assumptions about baptism, discipleship, and church discipline are exposed by that canon, and what would have to change in your church for that kind of seriousness to be even thinkable? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Nicaea’s Canon 12 says soldiers who came back to the military needed years of repentance before communion. What does that show about how serious the early church was about baptism, discipleship, and discipline, and what would your church need to change to take it that seriously?

Dean insists the apparent shift between “Yahweh is a man of war” (Ex. 15:3) and Jesus’ commands (“resist not evil,” “the Son of Man has not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them”) is not a change in God’s character but in “mission, method, and weapons”; what concrete “weapons” do you actually rely on when threatened (arguments, money, influence, lawsuits, force, reputation-management), and what would it look like this month to live as “sheep among wolves” armed only with eternal life and obedience to Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When you feel threatened, what “weapons” do you really use—arguments, money, influence, lawsuits, force, or protecting your image? What would it look like this month to live like “sheep among wolves,” trusting eternal life and obeying Jesus instead?