Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 10 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Christian Citizenship  /  What is a Kingdom Christian?  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 10
Bercot insists Jesus’ commandments don’t change with culture and calls it “one of the worst heresies” to say the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t apply to Christians today; how does his argument from Hebrews 13:8 and the vineyard parable (“no new lawgivers after Jesus”) challenge popular evangelical ideas of freedom, dispensations, and “not under law,” and what contemporary “politically incorrect” commands he mentions (divorce permanence, head coverings, modesty) most expose whether you treat Jesus’ words as binding or merely admirable?
Another way to ask: How does Bercot’s claim that Jesus’ commands never change challenge ideas like “not under law” or dividing the Bible into different rules for different times? Which “hard” commands he names (divorce, head coverings, modesty) most reveal whether you treat Jesus’ words as required or just good advice?

Direct Answer The transcript portion provided clearly teaches that Jesus’ commandments are unchanging and not subject to cultural shifts, grounding that in “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). However, the provided transcript is truncated right as Bercot begins the vineyard parable, and it does not include the specific phrases about “worst heresy,” “no new lawgivers,” or the examples of divorce permanence, head coverings, and modesty—so those parts can’t be answered directly from this excerpt.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says stepping into the kingdom means living under commandments that “don’t change with the seasons…society…culture…politically correct.”
  • He ties this to the eternal nature of the kingdom: “God’s kingdom is eternal.”
  • He cites Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
  • He begins appealing to Jesus’ authority through the vineyard parable (Matthew 21), but the explanation is cut off: the transcript ends mid-sentence.
  • Earlier, he consistently frames Jesus’ teachings (especially the Sermon on the Mount) as plain, binding commands—e.g., on enemy-love, nonresistance, and oaths—criticizing “theologian’s rationalization” that weakens them.
Discussion Follow-ups Given what he does say here, what would it mean to treat Jesus’ commands as fixed even when your culture calls them extreme? If you can provide the missing portion of the transcript, the question about the vineyard parable and “politically incorrect” examples can be answered precisely.

Jumpstarter 10 of 10
Back Questions Done