Discussion Questions

Chuck compares Bible-study resources to remodeling tools and says, “I don’t need a lot of tools, but I need the right ones”; what “tools” have most shaped how you interpret Scripture, and what would have to change for you to adopt a smaller-but-sharper toolkit? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What Bible study “tools” have shaped how you read the Bible the most? What would need to change for you to use fewer tools, but better ones?

Chuck says the Septuagint often lines up better than the Masoretic-based English OT when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament; how would accepting that claim reshape your confidence in “the Old Testament text” you assume the apostles were reading, and what examples (like Revelation 2/Psalm 2 or Hebrews 10/Habakkuk 2) feel most disruptive to you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If it’s true that the Septuagint matches the New Testament’s Old Testament quotes better than many English Bibles, how would that change your trust in the Old Testament text the apostles used? Which examples feel most unsettling to you (like Revelation 2/Psalm 2 or Hebrews 10/Habakkuk 2)?

In the Psalm 2 quotation issue (“shepherd them with a rod of iron” vs “smash them with a rod of iron”), what difference in God’s character, Messiah’s rule, and judgment do you sense between those two readings, and how might each one influence preaching and discipleship? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does “shepherd them with a rod of iron” feel different from “smash them with a rod of iron” in what it says about God, the Messiah’s rule, and judgment? How might each reading shape preaching and discipleship?

Chuck highlights the Septuagint calling Joshua “Jesus” (“Jesus son of Nun”) and says, “Jesus finishes the job that Moses started”; what theology of God’s purposes and continuity between covenants do you see implied by that, and how might this challenge the way modern Christians talk about “law vs grace”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Septuagint calls Joshua “Jesus” and suggests Jesus finishes what Moses started, what does that say about God’s plan across the covenants? How might that challenge the common “law vs grace” way of talking?

Chuck’s reason for using the Septuagint includes asking what NT words (love, grace, holiness, faith) meant to early hearers who already knew those words from the Greek OT; what does that assume about God’s intention in using consistent vocabulary across Scripture, and where do you think modern preaching most violates that assumption? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians heard words like love, grace, holiness, and faith with the Greek Old Testament in mind, what does that suggest God wanted by using the same words across Scripture? Where do you think modern preaching ignores that most?

Chuck calls the “agape is the highest, godly love” teaching “obviously nonsense,” using Samson/Delilah and Balaam “loving the wages of wickedness” as counterexamples; what cherished sermon points or Christian clichés have you built parts of your faith on, and how willing are you to let word-usage in Scripture demolish them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What sermon lines or Christian sayings have you built your faith on that might be wrong? How willing are you to let how the Bible actually uses words correct or destroy those ideas?

He argues that “grace” (charis) doesn’t mean “unmerited favor” but “favor,” and then says, “we’re saved by God’s favor”; how does that pressure or reframe common evangelical ways of talking about assurance, obedience, and the fear of “works righteousness”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “grace” means God’s “favor” rather than “unearned favor,” how does that change how you think about assurance and obedience? Does it change how you think about the fear of “works righteousness”?

Chuck says the faith is “based on words” like bricks in Boston buildings—if the bricks crumble, the building falls; where do you think your own theology relies on “crumbly bricks” (assumed definitions), and what practical process would you adopt to test word-meanings in context rather than inherit them from your tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you think your beliefs depend on shaky word meanings you’ve just assumed? What would you do in real life to test what words mean in their context instead of just trusting your tradition?

Chuck describes learning Greek partly for “self-defense” because about half the time preachers’ “in the Greek it really means…” claims were wrong; what does this reveal about truth-telling and accountability in teaching, and how should a church respond when popular teachers spread confident-but-false claims? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If many “in the Greek it really means…” claims are wrong, what does that say about honesty and accountability in teaching? What should a church do when popular teachers confidently spread false claims?

Chuck says early Christians have advantages (less “baggage,” native language, proximity to apostles) yet are fallible and not inspired, and he uses John 3:3–5 and head coverings as examples where they clarify disputed interpretations; when you personally face a text with multiple plausible readings, what would it look like to let early Christian consensus function as a “check” without replacing Scripture as the final authority—and where are you most resistant to doing that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When a Bible passage could be read more than one reasonable way, how could you use what early Christians agreed on as a safety check without treating it as higher than Scripture? Where are you most hesitant to do that?