Bercot (citing Chrysostom and Origen) says Paul is not saying the question is impossible to answer, but that it is *presumptuous* to raise it; how do you discern the difference between reverent theological inquiry and “unseasonable inquisitiveness and excessive prying” in your own approach to hard doctrines?
Another way to ask: Bercot says the question isn’t impossible to answer, but it’s rude and proud to ask it that way. How do you tell the difference between honest, humble questions and nosy, prideful “digging” into hard teachings?
Direct Answer
Based on the transcript, reverent inquiry stays within the posture of obedience and humility, while “excessive prying” tries to interrogate God’s reasons in a way that excuses sin or judges God’s fairness.
Support from Transcript:
Bercot says Paul “does not say it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them.”
He gives the controlling principle: “For our business is to obey what God says, not to question Him when we do not know the reason for His commands.”
Chrysostom’s phrase defines the danger: “unseasonable inquisitiveness and excessive prying.”
The opponent’s motive is blame-shifting: “If the Jews have rejected Christ, it must be God's fault.” This is not neutral curiosity.
Origen’s parallel: Jesus refused to answer the Pharisees’ challenge about authority (Matt. 21:23), showing that some questions are “impudent” rather than sincere.
Discussion Follow-ups
When you ask about predestination, foreknowledge, or hard texts, is your goal to obey more faithfully—or to protect yourself from responsibility? What practical signs show your questions are producing repentance rather than argument?
