Discussion Questions

David Bercot says God chose “the perfect time” to send Jesus so the historical setting would “precisely illustrate” what Jesus would teach; what does that claim suggest about God’s intentionality in history, and what specific features of 1st-century Judea make Jesus’ commands (enemy-love, extra mile, taxes) stand out as divine wisdom rather than abstract ideals? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God picked the “perfect time” for Jesus to come, what does that say about how God guides history? What was it about life in 1st-century Judea that made commands like loving enemies, going the extra mile, and paying taxes feel like real wisdom, not just nice ideas?

The chapter describes Jewish expectations that the Messiah would lead a war of liberation like the Maccabees did; how does Jesus’ refusal to play that role redefine what God’s salvation looks like, and what kinds of “Messiah expectations” do Christians today still carry that the chapter implicitly confronts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Many Jews expected the Messiah to start a freedom war like the Maccabees; how does Jesus refusing that role change what we think salvation is? What “Messiah” hopes do Christians today still have that this chapter challenges?

When Jesus tells Jews to love Romans, go the second mile, and pay Caesar’s taxes, Bercot calls those responses “treason” and “insanity” in that context; what is it about the kingdom of God that could make such behavior rational, and what would it cost socially, economically, and emotionally for an ordinary Jewish believer to obey? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would loving Romans, going the second mile, and paying Caesar’s taxes make any sense if God’s kingdom is real? What would it cost a normal Jewish believer—friends, money, safety, and feelings—to obey Jesus then?

Bercot highlights that Jesus “befriends the traitorous tax collectors and eats with them”; in the chapter’s moral universe (patriots vs. turncoats), what does Jesus’ table fellowship reveal about God’s posture toward despised collaborators, and how should that reshape the way Christians treat believers whose political or economic choices feel like betrayal? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Jesus eating with tax collectors show about how God treats people seen as traitors? How should that change how Christians treat other believers whose political or money choices feel like betrayal?

The chapter argues Jesus avoided Jewish national liberation not merely because He came to die, but because “His citizenship was in God’s kingdom” and “earthly national affairs [were] irrelevant”; what assumptions about the purpose of discipleship and the mission of the church are being challenged here? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus avoided national freedom fights because His true citizenship was in God’s kingdom, what does that challenge about what it means to follow Jesus? What does it challenge about what the church’s main job is?

Bercot says Acts and the Epistles never even mention the Jewish struggle against Rome, calling that silence evidence of irrelevance to the kingdom; how persuasive is that argument, and what does it imply about which issues should (or should not) dominate Christian preaching, conversation, and writing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Acts and the letters don’t talk about the Jewish fight against Rome; does that silence really prove it didn’t matter to God’s kingdom? If so, what topics should Christians focus on—or stop focusing on—in sermons and conversations?

The chapter claims history shows Jewish Christians did not join the revolt but fled Jerusalem to Pella after Jews briefly freed the city; what does that decision suggest early Christians believed about suffering, loyalty, and the legitimacy of violent resistance, and what would modern Christians most likely criticize about their choice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jewish Christians fled to Pella instead of joining the revolt, what does that show about their views on suffering, loyalty, and using violence? What would Christians today most likely dislike or criticize about their choice?

“The banner… wasn’t ‘God and country.’ It was ‘God or country.’” How does that either/or framework expose divided loyalties in the church today, and where do you feel the pressure to blend kingdom loyalty with national identity in ways the chapter would call impossible? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If it’s “God or country,” how does that reveal mixed loyalties in churches today? Where do you feel pressure to mix loyalty to God’s kingdom with national identity in a way this chapter says can’t work?

Bercot emphasizes there was “no rift between Jewish and Roman Christians” over Judea’s independence, and Roman Christians didn’t join Rome’s war; what practices or beliefs would have been required to maintain unity across enemy ethnicities, and what comparable divisions today reveal that we may not share those early Christian assumptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jewish and Roman Christians stayed united even when their peoples were enemies, what beliefs or habits made that possible? What similar divisions today suggest we don’t live by those same early Christian beliefs?

Using the U.S. citizenship analogy—transferring allegiance so you “can’t maintain allegiance to both”—what concrete “allegiances” (habits, media, slogans, voting hopes, fears, financial priorities, willingness to harm opponents) would need to change if you took kingdom citizenship as literally as Bercot describes, and which changes feel most threatening or unrealistic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you took “kingdom citizenship” as seriously as switching countries, what loyalties would need to change (media, slogans, voting hopes, fears, spending, or willingness to hurt opponents)? Which changes would feel hardest or least realistic for you?