Discussion Questions

Peter says Judas’s suicide and replacement had to happen “that the scripture may be fulfilled,” then cites Psalm 69 and Psalm 109; what does that claim suggest about God’s sovereignty over even betrayal and church leadership transitions, and what parts of that are hard for modern Christians to say out loud? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Peter says Judas’s death and replacement happened to fulfill Scripture (Psalm 69 and 109). What does that say about God being in control even when betrayal and leadership changes happen, and why is that hard for many Christians to admit?

The lesson notes that the word translated “office” in Psalm 109/Acts 1 is the same word used for “bishop/overseer”; how does that shape the way you think about authority and succession in the early church, and how does it confront modern anti-structure instincts in evangelicalism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the word for “office” is also used for “overseer/bishop,” what does that say about leadership and replacing leaders in the early church? How does that push back on today’s dislike of church structure?

Chuck argues that Judas is foretold “at least three places” in the Old Testament and highlights the gruesome description in Acts 1; how do you respond to the idea that Scripture not only predicts evil but narrates it in shocking detail—what does that reveal about God’s purposes in exposing sin? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you feel about the Bible predicting evil and even describing it in disturbing detail, like Judas in Acts 1? What might God be doing by showing sin so clearly?

Jesus applies Psalm 41 to Judas at the foot-washing/Last Supper (“He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me”); what does this scene reveal about Jesus’s self-awareness and intentionality going into betrayal, and how should that shape the way Christians interpret suffering that comes through “a man of peace”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: At the Last Supper Jesus says Psalm 41 is about Judas betraying him. What does that show about Jesus knowing what was coming and choosing to face it, and how should that affect how we understand suffering caused by someone close to us?

Psalm 41 includes the line, “Since he is asleep, will he rise up again?”; how does Chuck’s argument about “sleep” as a prophetic riddle (literal vs. death) challenge the way you usually read the Psalms, and what do you think early Christians assumed about reading Scripture with this kind of layered meaning? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Psalm 41 says, “Since he is asleep, will he rise up again?” If “sleep” might mean either real sleep or death, how does that change how you read the Psalms, and do you think early Christians expected this kind of double meaning?

In Psalm 41 the speaker asks God, “Raise me up and I will repay them,” and Chuck connects that to Christ triumphing over Satan and death; how does this “repay/vanquish enemies” framework sit with modern Christian discomfort about judgment, vengeance, and enemies—what do we lose if resurrection is framed only as comfort and not conquest? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Psalm 41 talks about being raised up to “repay” enemies, and Chuck connects that to Jesus defeating Satan and death. If we only talk about resurrection as comfort and not victory over enemies, what do we miss, and why are ideas like judgment and vengeance uncomfortable today?

Chuck ties Psalm 41’s “because of my innocence, you supported me” to Jesus being sinless (Hebrews 4:15; “lamb without blemish”); how does connecting resurrection to innocence confront common evangelical ways of talking about grace that downplay obedience, holiness, and the reality of sin? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chuck links Jesus’s resurrection to his innocence and sinlessness. How does that challenge common ways Christians talk about grace in a way that can ignore obedience, holiness, and how serious sin is?

James settles the Jerusalem Council not by experiences but by quoting Amos 9 (“I will rebuild the tabernacle of David…”); what does that method say about how the early church expected Scripture to govern major doctrinal decisions, and how does that expose weaknesses in how modern churches “discern” today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: James settles a big church debate by quoting Amos 9 instead of using personal stories. What does that show about how the early church used Scripture to make major decisions, and what might that reveal about how churches make decisions today?

The lesson argues that “tabernacle” means “tent” and is a metaphor for the body, so “the tabernacle of David” is Christ’s body (seed of David) that fell (death/burial) and was raised (resurrection); what is compelling or questionable about that interpretation, and what does it imply about God embedding the resurrection inside seemingly non-resurrection texts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says “tabernacle” means “tent” and points to Christ’s body—death and resurrection—hidden in Amos 9. What seems convincing or doubtful about that, and what would it mean if God put resurrection clues in passages that don’t look like resurrection texts?

James concludes Gentiles shouldn’t be troubled with circumcision/Law-keeping, but he still gives four concrete prohibitions (idols, sexual immorality, strangled things, blood); how does that combination—freedom from becoming Jewish, yet clear moral demands—challenge modern “faith alone means no rules” instincts, and what specific habits or compromises in your life come into focus when you put those four requirements next to your idea of grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: James says Gentiles don’t need circumcision or the whole Law, but he still gives four rules (idols, sexual sin, strangled meat, blood). How does that challenge the idea that “faith alone means no rules,” and which of those areas makes you think about your own habits or compromises?