Discussion Questions

Origen reports that many early Christians thought “Lucius” might be Luke because “Lucius” is the Roman form of “Luke”; what does that kind of early Christian reasoning reveal about how they weighed tradition, names/languages, and plausibility when reading Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Some early Christians guessed “Lucius” was Luke because the names sound related in different languages. What does that show about how they used tradition, name meanings, and “what seems likely” when reading the Bible?

David Bercot notes that when Paul calls Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater “kinsmen,” he likely means “fellow Jews,” and Timothy is excluded because he wasn’t Jewish; how does that ethnic clarity in Paul’s relationships challenge modern instincts either to erase ethnic distinctions entirely or to make them ultimate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Paul calls Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater his “kinsmen” because they were fellow Jews, what does that say about how Paul viewed ethnic identity? How does that challenge us when we either ignore ethnic differences or treat them as most important?

Paul lets Tertius, the amanuensis, insert a personal greeting (“I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle…”); what does this small detail suggest about Paul’s leadership style, view of co-laborers, and the communal nature of apostolic ministry—especially compared with modern “brand-name” Christian leadership? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul lets Tertius (the scribe) add his own greeting in Romans. What does that show about Paul’s leadership and teamwork, especially compared to today’s “celebrity” Christian leaders?

The lesson highlights Gaius as “host…of the whole church,” with an early comment praising him for opening his house even to “the very teachers of the whole world”; what picture of church life, hospitality, and sacrifice does that assume, and what would it require to recover anything like that today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Gaius is called a host to “the whole church.” What kind of church life and sacrifice does that assume, and what would we need to change to live more like that today?

Bercot argues that using Erastus to justify Christians holding political office runs into two obstacles—uncertainty about the office and the likelihood it was a past role; how should this caution shape the way your group handles “proof-text” arguments for politically active Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we aren’t sure what office Erastus held, and it may have been in his past, how should that affect the way we use Bible verses to argue for Christians being active in politics?

The argument that Erastus probably wasn’t a city steward while traveling with Paul is tied to Paul’s warning: “No soldier on duty entangles himself in the affairs of life”; what kinds of “entanglements” do modern Christians tend to excuse (career, status, activism, comfort), and how does the lesson press on those excuses? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul warns that a soldier shouldn’t get tangled up in everyday affairs. What “tangles” do Christians today often excuse (career, status, activism, comfort), and how does this lesson challenge those excuses?

Pelagius’ examples (Abigail still called Nabal’s wife, Matthew still called a tax collector, Luke the physician, Rahab the harlot) are used to show Scripture may keep old labels after someone’s life changes; how does that idea affect the way Christians should think about identity, reputation, and the labels we continue to carry—even after repentance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Pelagius says Scripture sometimes keeps old labels even after someone changes. How should that shape how Christians think about identity and reputation, especially when someone has repented but the label still sticks?

The “Erastus inscription” is presented as a case study in overconfident archaeology-based apologetics and political conclusions; what does this controversy reveal about our desire for external validation, and how might that desire subtly compete with trusting the plain teaching of the New Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The “Erastus inscription” debate shows how people can get too confident from archaeology. What does this reveal about our craving for outside proof, and how can that weaken trust in the clear teaching of the New Testament?

In the closing doxology, Paul says the mystery “kept secret since the world began” is now revealed: Gentiles becoming fellow heirs; what does this tell you about God’s long-range purposes, timing, and wisdom—and what does it demand from believers who prefer God to act quickly and transparently? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul says God kept a “mystery” hidden for a long time and then revealed it: Gentiles becoming fellow heirs. What does that teach about God’s timing and wisdom, and how should it challenge us when we want God to act fast and explain everything?

The lesson insists Paul ends Romans by emphasizing “the obedience of faith,” quoting Chrysostom (“Faith requires obedience, not inquisitiveness”) and Hermas (blessing promised “only if they will keep the commandments”); where do evangelical habits of assurance, “grace vs. works” language, or curiosity-driven theology resist this, and what concrete acts of obedience would expose whether your faith is truly the kind Paul describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul ends Romans by stressing “the obedience of faith.” Where do common evangelical habits (easy assurance, “grace vs. works” talk, or chasing new ideas) push back against that, and what specific acts of obedience would show whether your faith is real?