Discussion Questions

In the healing of the paralytic, Jesus publicly links forgiveness of sins with a visible, instant, complete healing; what does that scene suggest about God’s priorities and authority, and how does it challenge the modern habit of separating “spiritual” issues from bodily life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Jesus forgives the paralytic and then heals him right away in public, what does that show about God’s authority and what matters most to him? How does it challenge the way we separate “spiritual” problems from our physical lives today?

The early Christians emphasized that Jesus’ healings were immediate and complete (the paralytic walking at once, Peter’s mother-in-law instantly serving); how should that shape the way we evaluate modern miracle claims that are gradual, medically mediated, or hard to verify without falling into cynicism or naivety? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians said Jesus’ healings were instant and complete; how should that affect how we judge miracle claims today that are slow, happen through doctors, or are hard to prove? How can we be careful without being too trusting or too negative?

Bercot argues we should credit God for healing even through doctors, while still recognizing Jesus’ healings were categorically different; what does this imply about God’s normal providence versus special intervention, and how should that affect the way we pray and speak about healing testimonies? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God can heal through doctors, but Jesus’ healings were in a whole different category, what does that say about God’s usual care versus rare special actions? How should it change how we pray and talk about healing stories?

The chapter’s discussion of Matthew’s call highlights the scandal of Jesus choosing a tax collector as an apostle; if tax collectors were widely viewed as brutal “robbers under the cloak of law,” what does God’s choice of Matthew reveal about the kind of people God recruits, and what kinds of “unrecruitable” people do we quietly rule out today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If tax collectors were seen as cruel thieves with legal power, what does Jesus choosing Matthew say about the kind of people God calls? Who are the “unacceptable” people we assume God won’t use today?

Bercot rejects the common “tax collectors were hated mainly because they worked for Rome” explanation and replaces it with a picture of legalized extortion, violence, and desecration; how does that historical argument change the moral weight of Jesus eating with tax collectors, and what does it suggest about repentance, restitution, and social repair for people with predatory jobs? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If tax collectors were known for legalized extortion and violence, how does that make Jesus eating with them even more shocking? What might real repentance look like for people whose jobs harm others, including paying back and fixing damage?

When Jesus says new cloth can’t patch an old garment, Bercot says the point isn’t shrinking but that the gospel is stronger and the Mosaic Law “can’t hold it”; where do you see Christians today trying to make the gospel merely a patch on an old system (religious, political, cultural, or personal), and what breaks when we try? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the point is that the gospel is too strong to be held by the Mosaic Law, where do you see people trying to treat the gospel like a small patch on an old system (religious, political, cultural, or personal)? What tends to fall apart when they try?

Bercot argues “new wine” is real wine (Acts 2) and the point is not fermentation pressure but the risk of losing costly wine in brittle old bottles; what does that imply about the costliness and potency of the “new life in Jesus,” and what “old containers” (habits, identities, traditions, controls) are most tempted to contain it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “new wine” shows how valuable and powerful new life in Jesus is, what does that say about its cost and strength? What “old containers” in your life (habits, identity, traditions, need for control) try to hold it and end up failing?

The talk insists Christianity is “a new thing with a new people,” not merely revised Judaism, while still connected to and fulfilling the Law; what would it look like—in concrete practices and loyalties—for a church to live like a genuinely new people rather than a religious upgrade of an older moral system? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christianity is meant to be a truly new people, not just an improved version of an older moral system, what would that look like in everyday church life? What new loyalties and actions would show it?

Early Christian commentators noticed the 12-year link: Jairus’s daughter is 12 and the woman’s bleeding lasted 12 years; what does that “intertwining” suggest about God’s timing and providence, and how might it reframe the way you interpret long-standing afflictions that seem to run alongside someone else’s blessings? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What might it mean that Jairus’s daughter was 12 and the woman had suffered for 12 years at the same time? How could that change how you think about long pain that happens while someone else seems to be getting blessings?

Bercot says the woman with the flow of blood was likely Gentile (no command to show herself to the priest) and cites Eusebius’s report of a statue later destroyed to prevent idolatry; what does this combination—Gentile inclusion, public memory of Jesus’ power, and the danger of making images into objects of devotion—expose about our instincts to memorialize God’s work, and how can we honor God’s acts without turning them into substitutes for obedience and faith? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do these details—Jesus helping a likely Gentile, people remembering the miracle publicly, and the statue later being destroyed to avoid idolatry—teach about our urge to make memorials of God’s work? How can we remember what God did without turning objects or stories into replacements for obedience and faith?