Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

The chapter claims these prayer hours weren’t merely “man-made custom,” pointing to Daniel’s three daily prayers and Acts’ references to the sixth and ninth hours; how does this biblical-early church continuity challenge the modern tendency to treat structured prayer as legalistic or optional, and what criteria do you use to decide whether a practice is “tradition” worth recovering?

Another way to ask: If set prayer times connect Daniel, Acts, and the early church, how does that challenge the idea that structured prayer is legalistic or just optional? How do you decide which traditions are worth bringing back?

Direct Answer Bercot’s argument challenges the assumption that structured prayer is automatically “man-made” by showing continuity from Daniel and Jewish practice into the apostles and early Christians. At the same time, he explicitly says it is “not a commandment,” so it remains optional but valuable as a discipline that supports kingdom living.

Support from Transcript:

He admits his initial suspicion: “At first, I thought these prayer times were some sort of man-made custom.”
Then he sees scriptural parallels: Daniel prayed “three times that day… as was his custom since early days” (Daniel 6:10).
He connects Daniel to the same hours: “Daniel no doubt prayed at the third, sixth, and ninth hours.”
Acts shows set hours: “Peter and John… at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour,” and Peter prays “about the sixth hour.”
He clarifies status: “Maintaining these prayer hours is not a commandment from God.”
Yet he calls it a “secret” of kingdom life and a “great loss” that few keep them.

Discussion Follow-ups When you evaluate a tradition, do you weigh biblical precedent, spiritual fruit, and church history the way Bercot does here? What makes you dismiss a practice too quickly as “legalism”?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10