Discussion Questions

Calvin insists that “there exists a plain and complete guideline” for Christian moral living in the law of Moses, and that “whoever adds to or takes anything from it exceeds the limits”; what, in this chapter, makes Bercot say the early Christians would have called that “a false opinion,” and where does that leave how you personally use the Old Testament to decide what obedience looks like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Calvin says the law of Moses is the full guide for Christian living, but Bercot says early Christians would call that wrong. What in this chapter leads him to say that, and how do you use the Old Testament today to decide what obedience looks like?

The chapter says the early Christians believed the Old Testament commandments were “for an earthly kingdom” while Jesus’ teachings are for “citizens of a heavenly kingdom”; what does that distinction reveal about God’s purposes in giving the Mosaic law and then sending Christ, and how does it challenge the way modern Christians talk about “biblical morality”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Old Testament laws were for an earthly kingdom, but Jesus’ teachings are for a heavenly kingdom. What does that say about why God gave Moses’ law and then sent Jesus, and how should it change the way Christians talk about “biblical morality”?

Bercot claims “the church didn’t believe that God Himself had changed,” only that Jesus’ teaching “went to the core of the law”; what does it mean for God to be unchanging while His people are given a higher, more inward rule, and what does that suggest about God’s intent for the heart (not merely external compliance)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says God didn’t change, but Jesus pushed the law deeper into the heart. How can God stay the same while giving a higher, more inward kind of rule, and what does that show about what God wants from our hearts, not just our actions?

Jesus says “do not swear at all,” James says “Above all…do not swear,” and Bercot quotes multiple early Christian writers saying Christians “uniformly refused to take oaths”; what do you think the early Christians feared would happen spiritually if they normalized oath-taking, and what modern practices (court oaths, pledges, “I swear to God,” contractual swearing) expose how far we are from their “let your yes be yes”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians avoided oaths because Jesus and James said not to swear. What do you think they thought oath-taking would do to a person spiritually, and what modern habits (court oaths, pledges, “I swear to God,” contracts) show how far we are from “let your yes be yes”?

Clement argues that requiring an oath implies unfaithfulness (“How can he who is faithful show himself to be unfaithful so as to require an oath?”); how does that logic confront everyday Christian habits of exaggeration, reputation-management, and “trust-building” tactics, and what would it take for your speech to be credible without reinforcement? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Clement says needing an oath suggests you aren’t trustworthy. How does that challenge common Christian habits like exaggerating, trying to look better, or using “trust-building” tricks, and what would need to change for your words to be trusted without extra promises?

The chapter argues the early Christians rejected war not mainly due to idolatry concerns but because they literally obeyed “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”; how does that expose what they believed about God’s character (especially His justice and mercy), and what parts of that belief feel unrealistic—or threatening—to you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says early Christians rejected war mainly because they took “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek” literally. What does that show about how they saw God’s justice and mercy, and what about that feels unrealistic or even scary to you?

In Tertullian’s series of questions (“Shall the Son of Peace take part in battle…?” “Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture…?”), what picture of Christian identity is being assumed, and how does that collide with common evangelical categories like “defending freedom,” “just war,” or “protecting the innocent”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Tertullian’s questions about battle, prisons, and torture, what kind of Christian identity is he assuming. How does that clash with ideas like “defending freedom,” “just war,” or “protecting the innocent”?

Bercot recounts Baylor students responding to the Iran hostage crisis with racist anger and talk of “stomp[ing]” enemies; what does that story expose about how quickly Christians can revert to the world’s spirit under fear, and what practices would actually train a church to respond to national threats the way the early Christians said they did? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot tells about Baylor students reacting to the Iran hostage crisis with racist rage and violent talk. What does that show about how fast Christians can fall into the world’s way of thinking when they’re afraid, and what habits could train a church to respond more like the early Christians?

Origen claims Christians help rulers “in a divine way” through prayer as a “special army…of righteousness,” and Bercot links the Pax Romana and Rome’s later collapse to the church’s shift toward the sword; what do you think “trust” looks like here in real political terms, and how would your priorities change if you believed prayerful holiness was more effective for national protection than military force? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen says Christians support rulers mainly through prayer, like a “special army,” and Bercot ties Rome’s fall to the church turning to the sword. What would real political “trust” in God look like here, and how would your priorities change if you believed prayer and holiness protect a nation more than military power?

On capital punishment, Lactantius says it makes no difference whether you kill “by word or by the sword,” and Bercot says early Christians wouldn’t execute, watch executions, or even bring a capital charge—while still allowing the state’s role as God’s avenger; what would it look like to hold that tension today (affirming Romans 13 yet refusing participation), and where do your current views on war, the death penalty, abortion, and self-defense reveal which “kingdom” you functionally believe you belong to when “the chips are down”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians wouldn’t execute people, watch executions, or bring death-penalty charges, but they still said the state has a role in justice (Romans 13). What would it look like to agree the state has that role but refuse to take part yourself, and what do your views on war, the death penalty, abortion, and self-defense show about which kingdom you really live for when things get hard?