Discussion Questions

The lesson claims early Gentile Christians “so thoroughly identified themselves” as Israel that they sometimes called unbelievers “Gentiles”; what would have to change in a congregation’s self-understanding for Christians today to speak that way without arrogance or ethnic hostility? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says early Gentile Christians saw themselves so much as Israel that they even called unbelievers “Gentiles.” What would need to change in how a church sees itself for Christians today to talk like that without being proud or hostile to other ethnic groups?

Lactantius tells Romans, “Our ancestors were the patriarchs of the Hebrews” and “whose successors and posterity we are”; how does that way of speaking challenge modern instincts about ethnic identity, cultural ownership of the Bible, and who gets to claim Abraham as “our father”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Lactantius says, “Our ancestors were the patriarchs of the Hebrews.” How does that challenge how we think about ethnicity today, who “owns” the Bible, and who can call Abraham “our father”?

Chrysostom is quoted saying Paul rejects “the person who is not really a Jew” and even says the uncircumcised Gentile has an advantage “if he takes heed to himself”; what does it mean, in practice, to “take heed” in a way that could expose a baptized, churchgoing person as still “uncircumcised in heart”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chrysostom says an uncircumcised Gentile can have an advantage “if he takes heed to himself.” What would “taking heed” look like today, and how could it reveal that a baptized church member still has an “uncircumcised heart”?

The lesson says Paul “sets aside all outward things” (circumcision, Sabbaths, sacrifices, ritual purifications) while insisting “the need for a good life is everywhere demonstrated”; where do you see modern Christianity either clinging to “outward things” as identity markers or, in the opposite error, setting aside the “good life” under the banner of grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Paul sets aside outward markers like circumcision and rituals but insists on living a good life. Where do you see Christians today either clinging to outward identity markers, or using “grace” as an excuse to ignore a good life?

Jesus’ warning is quoted: the kingdom would be taken and given “to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it,” and the lesson asserts, “By the time Paul wrote Romans, that day had come”; what “fruits of the kingdom” would actually prove (or disprove) that a community is the Israel of God rather than merely religious “Israel after the flesh”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus said the kingdom would be given to people who produce its fruits, and the lesson says this had happened by Paul’s time. What “fruits of the kingdom” would show a community is really the Israel of God and not just “Israel after the flesh”?

The Romans 11 image is used: believing Gentiles grafted in, unbelieving Jews broken off; what does this metaphor imply about privilege, security, and the possibility of losing status—especially in contrast to modern assumptions of irreversible assurance based mainly on a past profession? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Romans 11 says Gentile believers are grafted in and unbelieving Jews are broken off. What does that teach about privilege, feeling secure, and the real possibility of losing status—especially compared to the idea that a past profession guarantees forever security?

Ephesians is quoted about the “middle wall of separation” being broken and “one new man” created; what would it look like for a church to embody “one new man” so concretely that social, class, and ethnic divisions lose their power—not only symbolically but in shared life, leadership, and resources? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ephesians says the “middle wall of separation” is broken and God makes “one new man.” What would it look like for a church to live this so clearly that class and ethnic divisions lose power in daily life, leadership, and money?

Theodoret says circumcision is a “sign and seal of faith,” and “if faith is not there, circumcision is worthless,” while the lesson adds that heart-circumcision is tied to obedience and “natural law”; how should this shape the way Christians evaluate faith—what evidence would count as real faith without turning obedience into mere moralism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Theodoret says circumcision without faith is worthless, and the lesson ties heart-circumcision to obedience and “natural law.” How should this affect how we judge whether someone’s faith is real, without turning obedience into just trying to be a “good person”?

Colossians is quoted defining heart-circumcision as “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,” happening at “conversion and baptism”; how does linking this decisive break with sin to baptism confront common evangelical patterns that treat baptism as optional symbolism and conversion as mainly an internal decision? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Colossians links heart-circumcision—breaking with sin—to conversion and baptism. How does that challenge the common view that baptism is optional and conversion is mostly just an inner choice?

The lesson connects “whose praise is not from men, but from God” to Judah’s name (“praise”) and Jesus’ warning about practicing righteousness to be seen; what hidden motives—ministry reputation, online visibility, theological correctness, activism, spiritual disciplines—most tempt you to seek “praise from men,” and what concrete practices could re-train you to pursue praise from God alone? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson warns about seeking “praise from men” instead of from God. What motives most tempt you to chase people’s approval (like reputation, online attention, being right, activism, or spiritual habits), and what specific habits could help you seek God’s approval instead?