Discussion Questions

In Paul’s imagined dialogue, the Jewish opponent charges God with “injustice” for accepting Gentiles on an equal basis with Jews; what assumptions about entitlement, covenant, and fairness are being exposed in that objection, and where do you see those same instincts operating in the church today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would a Jewish critic think it’s “unfair” for God to welcome Gentiles as equals, and what does that show about feeling entitled to God’s favor? Where do you see the same attitude in churches today?

David Bercot argues that quoting Exodus (“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”) is not God claiming arbitrary mercy but wise mercy informed by hearts and outcomes; what in the golden calf episode supports that reading, and what in the text might tempt someone toward the “arbitrary” reading he warns against? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the golden calf story, what shows that God’s mercy is wise and based on people’s hearts and results, not random? What part of the story might still make someone think God’s mercy is arbitrary?

The lesson highlights that God could have justly destroyed Israel after the golden calf yet instead limited judgment (3,000) and spared the rest; what does this episode reveal about God’s character—especially the relationship between justice, mercy, and God’s purpose to bring repentance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: After the golden calf, God could have wiped out Israel but punished only some; what does that teach you about how God’s justice and mercy work together? How might God use judgment to lead people to repent?

Ambrosiaster’s suggestion is that the 3,000 may have been punished because God knew they would not repent, and The Otteret says the selective punishment reformed the rest; how does that claim reshape the way you interpret severe judgments in Scripture, and what risks do you see in applying that logic to real-life tragedies or church discipline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God punished the 3,000 because they wouldn’t repent and spared others to change them, how does that affect how you read harsh judgments in the Bible? What dangers come from using that idea to explain real-life tragedies or church discipline?

The lesson insists Paul’s main focus is not individual salvation but the “two people groups” (Jews and Gentiles); what changes in how you read Romans 9:16 when you keep the corporate focus front and center, and what modern debates does that unsettle? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans 9 is mainly about Jews and Gentiles as groups (not individual salvation), how does that change what you think Romans 9:16 means? What popular arguments today does that make harder to keep?

Bercot says the Gnostics used this passage to deny human control over salvation and that early Christians rejected that as contradicting the rest of Scripture; what does that tell you about early Christian assumptions regarding free will, responsibility, and the meaningfulness of God’s commands? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians rejected the Gnostic idea that people have no real choice in salvation, what does that show about what they believed about free will and responsibility? How does that connect to why God’s commands matter?

Origen’s farming analogy (“I planted…God gave the increase”) is used to explain “not of him who runs” as God doing “infinitely greater” work without eliminating human participation; where is the line between “God does the greater part” and “we still must plant and water,” and how would your daily discipleship look different if you actually believed that balance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you tell the difference between “God does the biggest work” and “we still must act,” like planting and watering? If you truly believed both are needed, what would change in your daily discipleship?

The transcript argues that if the Gnostic reading were true, commandments would be superfluous and Paul’s praise/blame and church laws would be pointless; what parts of your own theology of grace and assurance either protect the seriousness of commands—or quietly make them feel optional? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does your view of grace and assurance make you take Jesus’ commands seriously? In what ways might it secretly make commands feel optional?

Bercot states, “God does not do our repenting and believing for us,” yet also quotes John 6:44 (“no one can come unless the Father draws”); how do you hold together real human choice and God’s initiating draw without sliding into either self-confidence (“my will and running”) or passivity (“God will do it all”)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can people truly choose to repent and believe if the Father must also draw them (John 6:44)? How do you avoid either pride (“I did it”) or laziness (“God will do it all”)?

The lesson ends with John 15 (fruit or cut off), “apart from Me you can do nothing,” Jesus’ command to “strive,” and Paul’s fear of being “disqualified”; what would it require—practically and internally—for your group to live as if final salvation involves both God’s enabling power and your obedient endurance, and what cherished modern Christian assumptions would that force you to reconsider? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would your group need to change—inside and in daily habits—to live like salvation requires both God’s help and your faithful obedience to the end? What comfortable modern Christian beliefs would that challenge?