Discussion Questions

Chuck Pike argues that resurrection prophecies are “missed” for the same reason the apostles missed them in Luke 18—because they’re hidden in allegories, types, and especially riddles; what does that suggest about God’s intentions in how He chose to reveal truth, and how does that challenge the modern expectation that Scripture should be immediately clear to any reader? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If resurrection prophecies were “missed” because they were hidden in riddles and symbols, what does that say about why God chose to reveal truth that way? How does that challenge the idea that the Bible should be instantly clear to anyone who reads it?

The lesson uses Jesus’ own riddling statements (“Destroy this temple…,” “born again,” “Lazarus sleeps”) to normalize “double-meaning” language; how does this reshape the way you read Old Testament lines about “sleep,” “wake,” “tabernacle,” and “raise up,” and what safeguards would keep that approach from becoming irresponsible allegory? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Since Jesus sometimes used words with two meanings, how should that affect how you read Old Testament words like “sleep,” “wake,” “tabernacle,” and “raise up”? What rules would keep you from turning everything into careless symbolism?

Chuck highlights the word “anistēmi” (“raise up”) as a key that flips interpretations (people took literal as figurative and figurative as literal); where do you feel resistance to the idea that God intentionally allowed that ambiguity, and what might God be exposing about our habits of reading when we resist it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you push back against the idea that God allowed real ambiguity in phrases like “raise up”? If you resist that, what might it show about your usual way of reading the Bible?

The lesson suggests some prophecies were “head fakes” to prevent Satan from understanding and thwarting Jesus’ mission, even as Satan “inspired and motivated Judas”; what does that imply about God’s wisdom, sovereignty, and strategy in redemption, and how does it fit (or clash) with your assumptions about spiritual warfare? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God used “head fakes” in prophecy so Satan wouldn’t understand Jesus’ mission, what does that say about God’s wisdom and control in salvation? How does that fit with what you think spiritual warfare is like?

Proverbs 1:6 is used to argue that maturity includes understanding “parables” and “riddles,” and Isaiah 11 is cited to show the Spirit is first “the Spirit of wisdom”; how does this reframe what you should be praying for and pursuing in study, and what would “seeking wisdom” look like in your week beyond consuming more information? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If maturity includes understanding riddles and the Spirit is first “wisdom,” what should you be asking God for when you pray and study? What would it look like to seek wisdom this week, not just collect more facts?

Chuck insists the point of this study is not trivia or impressing others, but to “read the Bible and think the way the apostles did” and evangelize the way Acts shows (Acts 2, 3, 7, 13; Acts 8; Acts 10:43); if your evangelism rarely uses fulfilled prophecy as “proof,” what does that reveal about what you believe persuades people, and what might need to change in your method or confidence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you rarely use fulfilled prophecy when sharing the gospel, what does that say about what you think convinces people? What might you need to change in how you share or in your confidence?

In 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, Paul tells a predominantly Gentile church they are saved “if you hold fast…unless you believed in vain,” grounding the gospel in “according to the Scriptures”; how does that conditional, perseverance-focused framing sit with common evangelical ways of talking about assurance, and how should it shape discipleship in the church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says they are saved if they “hold fast,” unless they believed “in vain,” and he ties the gospel to “the Scriptures”—how does that fit with how evangelicals often talk about assurance? What should that change about how the church makes disciples?

Justin Martyr’s conversion story centers on being confronted with the prophets as Spirit-filled witnesses and then feeling “a flame…kindled” and a love for the prophets; what would it mean for someone today to be drawn to Christ through the prophets rather than primarily through personal testimony or felt experience, and how might your church culture either help or hinder that path? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like today for someone to come to Christ mainly through the prophets, not mainly through personal stories or feelings? In what ways might your church culture help that happen—or make it harder?

Chuck recounts using Old Testament prophecy in Muslim contexts to answer the claim “the New Testament was changed,” arguing the Jews preserved the texts; what does this suggest about how God prepared public, checkable evidence for the gospel, and how should that shape the way we engage skeptics (atheists, Buddhists, Muslims) who demand evidence rather than religious claims? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Old Testament prophecy can be used as public, checkable evidence because the Jews preserved the texts, what does that say about how God backed up the gospel with evidence? How should that shape how we talk with skeptics who want proof, not just religious claims?

The lesson ties resurrection prophecy to Jesus’ four roles—king, priest, prophet like Moses (with the warning that refusers are “cut off”), and good shepherd who rules, protects, and restores strays—plus the claim that “we are that faithful house…if we remain faithful to him to the end”; which of these roles most confronts modern Christianity’s comfort with autonomy and minimal obedience, and what concrete change would it require in how you make decisions, treat sin, and respond to Jesus’ commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which of Jesus’ roles (king, priest, prophet like Moses, or good shepherd) most challenges today’s comfort with doing life our own way and obeying only a little? What specific change would that require in your choices, how you deal with sin, and how you respond to Jesus’ commands?