Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that Acts is not “a comprehensive history” and that it can mislead Christians into thinking Paul “almost single-handedly” evangelized the world; what assumptions about Scripture, history-writing, and apostolic authority does this expose in how modern Christians read Acts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Acts is not meant to tell the whole story, what does that show about the way many Christians assume the Bible works as history and how they view Paul’s authority?

Eusebius describes the gospel spreading “like the rays of the sun,” liberating people from “the bondage” of idolatry and demons; what picture of God’s intentions for the nations is implied here, and how does that picture challenge a privatized, “personal spirituality” approach to Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Eusebius says the gospel spread like sunlight and freed people from idols and demons, what does that say God wants for all nations, and how does it challenge a “faith is just private” view?

The lesson treats the Thaddeus/Edessa account as credible because Eusebius claimed to have seen “official records of the city”; how should a serious Christian weigh written historical sources, legends, and church tradition when they cannot be verified the way Scripture can—especially when miracles are involved? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Eusebius says he saw official city records about Thaddeus, how should Christians judge old writings, legends, and church tradition when they can’t be checked like Scripture—especially when miracles are claimed?

Thaddeus is said to have planted a Persian church that survived attempted eradication, and later Persia stopped persecuting Christians when Rome began persecuting them; what does this irony suggest about God’s sovereignty over political powers, and how might it reshape how Christians interpret “favorable” or “hostile” governments today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the Persia/Rome persecution “switch” suggest about God being in control over rulers, and how might it change how we read today’s “friendly” or “hostile” governments?

Bercot says the main early reason Rome didn’t persecute Christians was Tiberius’ favorable impression of Christ (not merely Christianity being seen as a Jewish sect); what does this claim do to common narratives about why persecution happens, and how might it unsettle Christian expectations about safety, tolerance, and cultural approval? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Rome first held back from persecuting Christians because Tiberius respected Christ, how does that change the usual story about why persecution happens, and what does it do to our expectations about safety and cultural approval?

James is portrayed as devoutly Jewish, living by the law (possibly even under a Nazarite vow) while not imposing it on Gentiles; what does James’ life suggest about holiness, identity, and freedom in Christ that doesn’t fit neatly into modern evangelical categories? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If James kept Jewish law closely but didn’t force it on Gentiles, what does that teach about holiness, identity, and freedom in Christ that doesn’t fit our usual categories?

The martyrdom of James includes his public confession of Jesus, his prayer “forgive them,” and Josephus’ claim that Jerusalem’s destruction avenged James; how do these details force us to wrestle with God’s justice and mercy together, especially when judgment seems to fall on a whole society? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do James praying “forgive them” and the claim that Jerusalem’s fall was payback for his death make you think about God’s mercy and justice at the same time, especially when a whole society suffers?

The Jerusalem Christians fled to Pella because of “an oracle given by revelation,” and Bercot insists these were “obviously genuine prophets,” not people imagining messages from God; what criteria (explicit or implied in the lesson) are being used to distinguish genuine revelation from self-deception, and how does that compare with how prophecy claims are treated in your church tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What signs does the lesson use to tell real revelation from people fooling themselves, and how does that compare to how your church handles claims of prophecy?

The lesson describes Gnostic teachers exploiting the era of traveling prophets/teachers, prompting John’s instruction not to welcome those who deny Christ came in the flesh; how does this early Christian refusal of hospitality toward certain teachers confront modern instincts about being “nice,” “open,” or platforming diverse views in the name of unity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians refused hospitality to teachers who denied Jesus came in the flesh, how should that shape our ideas about being “nice,” being “open,” and giving people a platform in the name of unity?

In the story from Clement of Alexandria, John treats baptism as a “seal” but then pursues a baptized young man who becomes a violent bandit, leading him to what is called being “baptized a second time with tears”; what does this narrative imply about assurance, apostasy, repentance, and the cost of restoration—and where does it collide with common evangelical slogans about “once saved, always saved” or “just accept Jesus”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a baptized man falls into serious sin but is later restored through deep repentance (“baptized with tears”), what does that say about assurance, falling away, and the hard work of coming back—and how does it challenge sayings like “once saved, always saved” or “just accept Jesus”?