Discussion Questions

Chuck Pike says “either [the resurrection] happened or it did not happen…if it did happen, it changes everything”; what specific parts of your faith (identity, priorities, fear of death, view of obedience) would actually have to change if you treated the resurrection as the single load-bearing event it is claimed to be? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck Pike says the resurrection either happened or it didn’t, and if it did, it changes everything. If you really treated it as the most important event, what would have to change in your identity, priorities, fear of death, and obedience?

In Luke 18 Jesus clearly predicts mocking, scourging, death, and rising “on the third day,” yet “they understood none of these things”; what does that reveal about how God allows sincere disciples to be confused for a time, and how should that shape the way we interpret Scripture when we feel “baffled”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Luke 18 Jesus predicts His death and rising again, but the disciples still don’t get it. What does that show about how God may let sincere followers be confused for a while, and how should you read the Bible when you feel stuck?

Jesus claims in Luke 24 that “all things must be fulfilled…in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms”; what does it imply about God’s intention in saturating multiple sections of Scripture with Messianic fulfillment rather than relying on a few obvious proof-texts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus says the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms all point to Him in Luke 24. Why would God spread these promises across so much of Scripture instead of using just a few clear verses?

Chuck asks two questions: where the Old Testament predicts the Christ’s rejection/crucifixion (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Psalm 2, Passover lamb) and where it predicts His resurrection; why do you think many Christians can answer the first but go blank on the second, and what might that expose about how we’ve been taught to read the Old Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Many Christians can name Old Testament passages about Jesus’ suffering, but struggle to name ones about His resurrection. Why do you think that is, and what does it say about how we’ve learned to read the Old Testament?

Chuck describes Luke 24 as “perhaps the greatest Bible class of all time” and says it frustrates him that “I don’t have it”; what does that frustration reveal about our assumptions regarding what God owes the church in terms of detailed explanations, and what does it suggest about the role of humility and dependence on apostolic witness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck wishes we had Jesus’ full Bible lesson from Luke 24, but we don’t. What does that say about what we think God “should” give the church, and how should it push us toward humility and trust in the apostles’ witness?

He proposes “reverse engineering” Jesus’ Bible lesson by starting with Peter’s sermons and letters; how does this method challenge modern habits of jumping straight to private interpretation, and how might early Christians have approached “what Jesus taught” differently than many believers do today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck suggests “reverse engineering” Jesus’ lesson by starting with Peter’s sermons and letters. How does that push back against going straight to our own private interpretation, and how might early Christians have learned what Jesus taught?

In Acts 2 Peter insists Jesus’ crucifixion happened by “the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God,” while still calling the human agents “lawless”; how should this shape the way we talk about God’s sovereignty without using it to soften human guilt—or to accuse God of wrongdoing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Acts 2 Peter says Jesus’ death was part of God’s plan, but he still calls the people who did it “lawless.” How can we talk about God’s sovereignty without excusing human guilt or blaming God for evil?

Peter’s resurrection proof centers on Psalm 16 and the argument “David is dead…his tomb is with us…therefore it could not apply to David himself”; what does this teach about early Christian reasoning from Scripture (logic, public facts like David’s tomb, and prophetic categories), and how confident should we be using similar reasoning today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Peter argues from Psalm 16 that it can’t be about David because David died and his tomb was known. What does this show about how early Christians used Scripture along with logic and public facts, and should we use that kind of reasoning today?

Chuck emphasizes that Peter quotes Psalm 16 through the Septuagint and notes the early church used it extensively; what uncomfortable questions does that raise for modern Christians who insist on one “original-language-only” approach, and how might this affect how we evaluate quotations and wording differences in the New Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck says Peter quotes Psalm 16 from the Septuagint, and the early church used it a lot. What hard questions does that raise for people who insist we must only use the “original language,” and how should we handle wording differences in New Testament quotes?

Chuck draws the conclusion from Psalm 16/Acts 2 that Christ’s soul went to Hades (Sheol) as a “place of waiting,” not Gehenna, and “did not remain there”; how does that claim confront common modern Christian pictures of the afterlife, and what practical effect should it have on how you face death, judgment, and the urgency of repentance and remission of sins being preached “to all nations”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck says Psalm 16/Acts 2 teaches Christ went to Hades (Sheol), a waiting place, not Gehenna, and He didn’t stay there. How does that challenge common ideas about the afterlife, and how should it change the way you face death, judgment, and the call to repent?