Gentle and Lowly

1.Ortlund argues that when Jesus says "I am gentle and lowly in heart," the word "heart" points to Jesus' most central, defining reality — not merely an emotion he sometimes feels. How does this change the way you think about Jesus' gentleness? Is it easier to believe Jesus is sometimes gentle, or that gentleness is his deepest nature?

1.Ortlund opens the chapter by noting that we rarely think about whether Jesus is joyful, and that our imagination of him tends toward the grave and sorrowful. Where do you think that image comes from — is it the Scriptures, church culture, or something else?

1.Ortlund highlights two moments where Jesus weeps or laments — over Jerusalem in Luke 19 and his cry in Matthew 23 ("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often would I have gathered your children together"). What do these moments reveal about Christ's emotional life?

1.Ortlund focuses on Psalm 103:13–14: "As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust." What does it mean that God's compassion is rooted in his knowledge of our weakness — not despite it, but because of it?

1.Ortlund argues that the New Testament presents Jesus with a vivid and varied emotional life — he marvels, grieves, rejoices, is angered, is troubled, and weeps. Why do you think Christians often flatten this out, preferring a Jesus who is placidly calm and emotionally neutral?

1.Isaiah 42:3 says the Servant of the Lord "will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick." Ortlund unpacks this as a picture of Christ's deliberate, careful tenderness toward the barely surviving. What bruised reed or smoldering wick in your life comes to mind as you read this verse?

1.Hebrews 5:2 says a high priest "can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward" because he himself is "beset with weakness." Ortlund emphasizes the phrase "can deal gently" — it is a capacity, an ability shaped by experience. How does this shed light on why the incarnation was necessary, not just strategic?

1.Hebrews 7:24–25 teaches that because Jesus "continues forever," his priesthood is permanent and he is able to save "to the uttermost" those who come to God through him. Ortlund lingers on the phrase "to the uttermost" — it means all the way, completely, without limit. What does it mean for your salvation that it rests on a permanent rather than temporary priesthood?

1.Paul calls himself "the foremost" (or chief) of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15. Ortlund points out that Paul wrote this late in life, long after his conversion — it is not a past self-description but a present one. Why does Paul not move on from this self-identification? What does it suggest about how deep Paul's grasp of grace had gone?

1.1 John 2:1 says, "If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Ortlund notes that the word translated "advocate" (parakletos) is the same word used for the Holy Spirit in John's Gospel. What does this legal-yet-personal image communicate about how Christ relates to our ongoing sin?

1.Lamentations 3:22–23 declares that God's mercies are "new every morning" — written in the context of Jerusalem's destruction, which the author acknowledges was God's judgment. How does it reshape the meaning of "new every morning" to know it was written amid ruins? What does that context add to the comfort?

1.Isaiah 55:8–9 famously declares that God's ways and thoughts are as high above ours as the heavens are above the earth. Ortlund applies this specifically to God's mercy — God does not extend mercy the way we do (grudgingly, with conditions, up to a point). Why is it significant that the transcendence of God is applied here to his mercy rather than his power or holiness?

1.Ephesians 2:1–3 describes our pre-conversion state in the darkest terms: dead in sins, following the devil, living in the flesh, children of wrath. Ortlund does not soften this portrait. Why is it important to feel the full weight of this description before moving to verse 4? What is lost if we rush past "dead" to get to "But God"?

1.Ortlund uses the Song of Solomon — traditionally read by many in the church as an allegory of Christ's love for his people — to speak of Christ's passionate pursuit of the believer. Does reading the Song of Solomon this way feel natural or forced to you? What are the limits and the benefits of this interpretive approach?

1.Zephaniah 3:17 says God "will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing." This is one of the most startling verses in the Old Testament. What is your initial, honest reaction to the image of God singing over you with joy?

1.Romans 8:31 asks, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Ortlund treats this not as a rhetorical question that shuts down all opposition but as a question that acknowledges real opposition — and then answers it with the greater reality of God's "for-ness." What does it mean for God to be "for" you? How is this different from God simply being kind or tolerant?

1.Psalm 23:4 shifts from "he" to "you" — "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me." Ortlund notes this grammatical shift as significant — in the darkest valley, the psalmist stops talking about God and starts talking to him. Why does personal address become necessary in the place of deepest darkness?

1.Matthew 28:18 records Jesus saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Ortlund argues that this authority belongs to the same Jesus described in Matthew 11:29 as gentle and lowly. Why is it important that these two descriptions of Christ go together — that power and gentleness belong to the same person?

1.Philippians 1:6 says, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Ortlund anchors the believer's perseverance not in their ability to hold on but in Christ's determination to complete what he started. How does this reframe the question of "Will I make it?" into a different question entirely?

1.Ephesians 3:18–19 prays that believers would "comprehend... the breadth and length and height and depth" of the love of Christ and "know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge." Ortlund lingers on the paradox: you are being asked to know what you cannot fully know. What does it mean to grow in knowing a love that exceeds the capacity of knowledge?

1.Looking back at the full book, which single chapter or theme was most impactful for you? What made it hit so hard? Was it a truth you had never heard, or a truth you had heard but never quite believed until now?