Discussion Questions

When Paul answers the charge “God has disowned His people” by pointing to himself (“I too am an Israelite…of the tribe of Benjamin”), what does that argument assume about God’s character and consistency in keeping His promises—even when large numbers within “His people” are unfaithful? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Paul says God hasn’t rejected His people because Paul himself is an Israelite, what does that say about God’s character and His faithfulness to keep promises even when many are unfaithful?

The lesson says the “new Israel of God” is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles as equals, with “no partiality with God”; where do you see modern Christians still practicing partiality (ethnic, cultural, theological, political), and how would Paul’s framing challenge those boundaries? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you still see Christians showing favoritism (race, culture, beliefs, politics), and how would Paul’s view of Jews and Gentiles as equals challenge those lines?

David Bercot emphasizes that Romans 11 is meant to leave both Jewish and Gentile readers with “a warm hope for the future of their people”; what kinds of “hope for our people” (nation, church tradition, family line) do we cling to today, and how might that hope subtly conflict with Paul’s remnant-and-faithfulness emphasis? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kind of “hope for our people” (our nation, church group, or family) do you hold onto today, and how might that clash with Paul’s focus on a faithful remnant instead of the whole group?

The transcript highlights two senses of “foreknew” (God’s advance knowledge and God’s approval/acknowledgment) and explicitly rejects “arbitrary predestination”; what is at stake spiritually and pastorally if “foreknowledge” includes God’s evaluative recognition of a person’s life rather than merely a fixed decree? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “foreknew” means God not only knows ahead of time but also approves or recognizes a person’s life, why does that matter for how we care for people and talk about salvation?

Origen and others are quoted as saying God foreknows those “worthy of the divine knowledge” who “welcomed the light of faith”; what do you think they meant by “worthy,” and how does that sit with modern evangelical instincts about worthiness, grace, and the fear of “earning”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When Origen says God foreknows those “worthy” who welcomed faith, what do you think “worthy” means, and how does that fit with ideas about grace and not “earning” salvation?

The lesson connects God “not knowing” people with Jesus’ warnings in Luke 13 and Matthew 7 (“Depart from me…workers of evil/lawlessness”); how does that connection challenge common modern assurances that verbal profession, spiritual experiences, or ministry success are reliable signs of being known by Christ? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus warns that some people who call Him “Lord” will still be told, “I never knew you,” what does that say about trusting words, spiritual experiences, or ministry success as proof you belong to Him?

Paul uses Elijah’s 7,000 to argue that a faithful remnant can constitute the “true Israel,” and that God “rejected all the rest”; what emotions or objections does that raise for you about God’s ways, and what would it require to trust God’s justice and wisdom in that kind of selectivity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you feel about God calling only a faithful remnant the “true Israel” and rejecting the rest, and what would help you trust God’s justice and wisdom in that?

Bercot argues that the early Christians heard “choice/election” (eklogē) as implying God has a basis for selecting and rejecting, not arbitrary predestination; what “basis” does the transcript repeatedly point to, and how would adopting that early-Christian assumption reshape how you interpret Romans 9–11? JumpstartAnother way to ask: According to the transcript, what reason does God use for choosing or rejecting people, and how would that change how you read Romans 9–11?

The teacher calls Romans 11:6 a “popular proof text” used to claim obedience is not essential, and says that is “cherry-picking”; where have you seen isolated verses function as permission slips in your own life or church culture, and what disciplines would prevent that way of reading Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people use one Bible verse as an excuse to do what they want, and what habits could keep you from reading Scripture that way?

The lesson insists Paul is rejecting “works of the law” (circumcision, Sabbaths, new moons, sacrifices), not “works of righteousness,” and quotes Wesley that many are “more afraid of the works of God than…of the works of the devil”; in what concrete ways does that fear show up today (in preaching, discipleship, conscience, parenting), and what would it look like to “unite righteous works with grace” without turning grace “vain”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What are some real ways people today are afraid to stress obedience or good works (in preaching, parenting, conscience, discipleship), and what would it look like to join grace with right living without making grace meaningless?