Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that the “Five Laws of Kingdom Life” should be “so obvious to anyone who reads the words of Jesus,” yet he says they are denied or minimized in many churches—what does that claim suggest about God’s intention in giving Jesus’ commands, and what does it imply about the spiritual danger of learning Christianity “through Paul rather than through the teachings of Jesus”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ “Five Laws of Kingdom Life” are supposed to be obvious, why would many churches downplay them? What danger is there in learning Christianity mostly from Paul instead of from Jesus’ own teachings?

Bercot says theologians have created a form of Christianity where “the teachings of Jesus are essentially heretical,” and he adds, “either he’s a heretic or they’re a heretic”—what specific interpretive moves does he point to (dispensations, starting in Romans, Luther’s approach), and which of those moves are most tempting in your own tradition or habits? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says some theologians treat Jesus’ teachings as wrong—so either Jesus is wrong or they are. Of the methods he names (dispensations, starting in Romans, Luther’s approach), which ones show up most in your church or in how you read the Bible?

He treats Matthew as the strategic “starting place” for Christianity and for understanding the Kingdom, citing early Christian testimony that it was likely the first written New Testament book—how would early Christians’ prioritizing of Matthew reshape what modern Christians assume is “central” (e.g., assurance language, grace emphasis, doctrinal summaries), and what would it cost to reorder our reading that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians put Matthew first when learning the faith, how might that change what we think is most important today? What would be hard about changing our Bible-reading order and focus like that?

In John 15 and Matthew 7 (“Lord, Lord… Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness”), Bercot insists that obeying Jesus is not optional and that “lawlessness” is a lived practice, not a theological mistake—how does his reading challenge common evangelical ways of using “I never knew you” to mean “they were never saved,” and what part of his argument do you find hardest to accept? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says “lawlessness” in Matthew 7 means a pattern of disobeying Jesus, not just having wrong beliefs. How does that push back on the common idea that “I never knew you” only means “they were never saved,” and what part of his view is hardest for you?

Bercot describes salvation as an “obedient love-faith relationship” where the power comes from abiding in Christ, yet real branches can still be “taken away” if they don’t bear fruit—what does this reveal about God’s character (pruning, warning, joy, love), and how does it confront “once-saved-always-saved” instincts without collapsing into self-salvation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation means a loving, trusting relationship shown by obedience, but a real branch can still be cut off for not bearing fruit, what does that say about God’s love and warnings? How does this challenge “once saved, always saved” without turning salvation into “earning it”?

He quotes Jeremiah 31 (“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts”) to argue the New Covenant is not lawless but internally empowered—what would it look like in daily life to treat Jesus’ commands as “written on the heart” rather than as external rule-keeping, and how would you know whether your obedience is flowing from love or from fear/pride? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would everyday life look like if Jesus’ commands were “written on your heart,” not just followed as outside rules? How can you tell if you obey from love instead of fear or pride?

Bercot says we must not “take away” from Jesus’ teachings (he lists war, swearing, torture, divorce, homosexuality as examples of areas churches excuse)—which modern exemptions feel most “reasonable” to you, and how do you decide whether you’re making a faithful application versus quietly nullifying a command? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says we shouldn’t explain away Jesus’ teachings (like on war, swearing, torture, divorce, or homosexuality). Which “exceptions” feel most reasonable to you, and how do you tell the difference between wise application and quietly canceling a command?

On “don’t add to Jesus’ commandments,” he uses the school-zone ticket illustration and Jesus’ rebuke of Pharisaic traditions (Mark 7; Matthew 23 “heavy burdens”)—where have you seen extra rules framed as “for safety” or “to help people obey,” and how can a church discern when a well-meant boundary has become spiritual overdose? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen churches add extra rules “for safety” or “to help people obey,” like the Pharisees did? How can a church tell when a helpful boundary has turned into a heavy burden?

Bercot allows two exceptions to “don’t add”: (a) voluntary extra discipline (Nazarites, Jesus’ homelessness, celibacy, Methodist Society) and (b) church applications of principles (modesty, refusing roles that required torture, etc.)—what practical tests would help a group keep voluntary discipline truly voluntary, and how do you prevent “applications” from turning into a new measuring stick for who is “really Christian”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are good ways to keep extra spiritual disciplines truly optional and not pressured? How do you stop “applications” (like modesty rules) from becoming the real test of who counts as a true Christian?

In law #4 and #5, he warns that obedience can breed spiritual pride (“Shoots and Ladders” near the finish) and that Kingdom life normally includes conflict—often from other professing Christians in North America—and he says true obedience makes grace more precious, not less; how would your relationships, speech, and expectations change if you assumed (a) you always have a “beam” in your eye and (b) the most painful opposition may come from fellow Christians rather than “the world”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would your words, relationships, and expectations change if you assumed you always have your own “blind spot” and need humility? How would you live differently if you expected the toughest pushback to come from other Christians, not just from nonbelievers?