Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that the Judaizers were not inventing a corrupt new gospel but refusing to accept a change God Himself had instituted regarding Gentiles and the Law. How does this challenge the way we distinguish between faithfulness to tradition and resistance to God’s unfolding purposes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David Bercot says the Judaizers were not creating a false new gospel. They were refusing to accept a change God had made about Gentiles and the Law. How does this help us tell the difference between being faithful to tradition and resisting what God is doing?

The chapter says that God’s eternal purpose never changed, even though from man’s perspective “God changed the rules” when He broke down the wall between Jews and Gentiles. What does this reveal about God’s wisdom, patience, and authority over His own covenant arrangements? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says God’s eternal plan did not change, even though it looked like God “changed the rules” when He united Jews and Gentiles. What does this show about God’s wisdom, patience, and right to guide His covenants?

Bercot emphasizes that the problems in the seven churches of Revelation were primarily moral rather than theological. How does this confront the modern tendency to measure a church’s faithfulness mainly by doctrinal statements rather than by obedience, holiness, and discipline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the main problems in the seven churches of Revelation were moral, not doctrinal. How does this challenge the modern habit of judging a church mostly by its beliefs instead of its obedience, holiness, and discipline?

Jesus rebuked some churches in Revelation for tolerating immorality and idolatry through the teachings of Balaam, Jezebel, and the Nicolaitans. What might similar forms of “toleration” look like in churches today, especially when immoral practices are defended or ignored in the name of grace, love, or freedom? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus rebuked some churches in Revelation for allowing sin and idolatry through the teachings of Balaam, Jezebel, and the Nicolaitans. What might churches today be allowing when they excuse or ignore sin in the name of grace, love, or freedom?

Bercot notes that Jesus told the faithful in Thyatira, “I place no other burden on you; nevertheless, what you have, hold fast until I come.” What beliefs and practices would the original hearers have understood themselves to be holding fast to, and how should that question affect Christians who assume later forms of Christianity are automatically more biblical? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot notes that Jesus told the faithful in Thyatira, “Hold fast until I come.” What beliefs and practices would those first Christians think they were holding on to? How should this challenge Christians who assume later forms of Christianity are always more biblical?

The chapter points out that Jesus had no correction for Smyrna and Philadelphia, and that Polycarp, a disciple of John, was connected with Smyrna. How should the faithfulness of Smyrna affect our willingness to listen seriously to second-century Christian witnesses such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus gave no correction to Smyrna and Philadelphia, and Polycarp, a student of John, was connected to Smyrna. How should Smyrna’s faithfulness affect how seriously we listen to second-century Christians like Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus?

Bercot argues that the second-century church appears to have taken Jesus’ warnings in Revelation seriously by correcting laxity in church discipline. What would it cost modern churches to recover that kind of seriousness about excluding persistent immorality and idolatry from the body? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the second-century church seems to have taken Jesus’ warnings in Revelation seriously by correcting weak church discipline. What would it cost churches today to take a strong stand against ongoing sin and idolatry in the church?

The chapter challenges the claim that the entire church became apostate shortly after the apostles died. Why might many modern Christians feel a need to believe in an early collapse of the church, and what assumptions about their own tradition might be threatened if the second-century church actually preserved apostolic Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter challenges the idea that the whole church fell away soon after the apostles died. Why might many modern Christians want to believe the early church quickly failed? What beliefs about their own tradition might be challenged if the second-century church kept the apostles’ faith?

Bercot rejects speculation about unknown second-century groups that supposedly believed like modern Christians, noting that early Christians wrote extensively against heresies and that many heretical writings still survive. How should the absence of historical evidence shape our confidence or caution when claiming apostolic roots for beliefs common today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot rejects guesses about unknown second-century groups that supposedly believed like modern Christians. Early Christians wrote a lot against heresies, and many heretical writings still exist. How should the lack of historical evidence make us more careful when we claim today’s beliefs came from the apostles?

The chapter ends by saying that the evidence leaves Christians with “a hard choice” few want to face. What personal, doctrinal, or church-life changes might become necessary if apostolic Christianity was closer to the documented second-century church than to many assumptions of modern evangelical Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says the evidence gives Christians “a hard choice” that few want to face. What personal beliefs, doctrines, or church practices might need to change if apostolic Christianity was closer to the recorded second-century church than to many modern evangelical ideas?