Marc Cortez, who teaches theology at Western Seminary in Portland, has written a series thought provoking of articles on What’s Wrong with our Gospel.  We often divorce the Gospel from its context in the biblical story of redemption and focus almost exclusively on our individual experience with God.  Just listen to a typical baptism testimony and you will see what I mean.

Here are some of the other posts in this series:

• Problem #1: The Self-Centered Gospel
• Problem #2: The Individualistic Gospel
• Problem #3: “Getting In”
• Problem #4: The (un)Social Gospel

What do you think about these articles?  How can we share the Gospel in proper biblical context?

Most churches have Bible studies in small group settings, but they are not all run in the same way.  Sometimes the Bible study resembles a Sunday School class, with a long lecture from the study leader and only limited interaction.  At the other extreme, some studies are conducted without a leader and the group simply shares their opinions with each other without any real direction.  Some groups use a Bible study curriculum that directs the discussion to certain topics, with a list of Scripture passages for each topic.  In some cases so little time is actually spent studying the Scriptures that I wonder if it is even suitable to call them “Bible studies.”  Different approaches are suitable for different situations, but there are significant advantages to inductive Bible study.

What is “inductive” Bible study?

Inductive Bible study is “inductive” in the sense that the goal is to draw conclusions from the data of Scripture in a way that is similar to that used in experimental science–general conclusions are drawn from specific data.  While this might seem to be the obvious approach, there are in fact many “Bible studies” that are written from the opposite approach, starting with several points that the study writer wants to make and then looking for some Scripture passages to back them up.  But if we respect the Bible as God’s word we should strive to let the Bible speak for itself, not use Scripture as a source of proof texts to support our own ideas.

Inductive Bible study in a small group setting involves the whole group in the discovery process, with a study leader to act as a moderator to guide the discussion.  Here are some of the characteristics of an Inductive Bible Study:

• The study is usually focused on a single passage of Scripture, which is long enough to be a complete literary unit
• The leader is well prepared, but shares only a little background information and leads mainly by asking questions
• The group digs into the text together to discover its meaning
• Some groups use printed handouts of the text so that group members can mark up their copy as they study
• Conclusions are grounded in the text of Scripture

Advantages of inductive Bible study

There are some significant advantages to doing inductive Bible studies:

• there is ample opportunity for active participation
• we retain more of what we discover for ourselves
• we benefit from the insights of others
• an experienced leader can provide direction and focus without dominating the discussion
• we learn how to study the Bible by example (especially from the leader’s questions)
• passages are studied in context instead of as isolated verses
• new Christians and even seekers can participate without needing to be familiar with rest of the Bible
• we can encourage each other in applying what we have learned

The goals of inductive Bible study

Some of the ministry goals for inductive Bible study are:

• that people would grow in their understanding of and obedience to God’s word (life transformation)
• that group members would learn how to study the Bible by example
• that Christ-centered relationships would be fostered through interaction in the study

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”  (Col. 3:16, ESV)

What is your experience with inductive Bible studies?

Last year I read through the Bible using the ESV translation.  Actually I only finished yesterday, because I fell behind while I was out of town over Christmas.  But the main thing is to be reading the Bible every day, or nearly every day.  If you don’t read the Bible all the way through then there are passages that you will never read and on which you will never hear a sermon.  Granted, some of those passages are tedious to read  because they include long genealogies or detailed descriptions of the temple construction (confession: I skim read some of those passages).  But there are many other seldom read passages that challenge us in important ways.  All of Scripture is God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

People often say that the “OT God” is judgmental and the “NT God” is loving.  I wonder if they have ever read Revelation.  Have they not heard about God’s patience for many generations before He finally sent Israel and then Judah into captivity?  Do they not know about the wonderful promises in Isaiah of future restoration and blessing?

I think that the OT prophets are probably the most neglected portion of Scripture.  We feel bewildered by the frequent references to ancient nations, cities and events.  But the overall message of the prophets is very relevant for us today.  As I read through the Bible in 2009 I was struck by the importance of the prophets, so beginning in February of last year I gave a short sermon series on the Message of the Prophets.  You can find those messages on the CFC web site, starting with 2/21/10.

The basic message of the prophets is:

• You have broken the covenant and had better repent!
• If you don’t repent then you will face judgment!
• Yet there is still hope for future restoration!

This points the way to the Gospel.  God desires a relationship with us, but we have sinned and deserve His judgment.  He has provided the way of salvation in the death and resurrection of Christ.  We must repent and believe to be saved.  Those who do not repent and believe still face God’s judgment.

Of course this is only one example.  There is great benefit to reading the other often neglected portions of Scripture as well.  We are at the beginning of a new year, so I encourage you to commit yourself to reading through the entire Bible this year. There are many Bible reading plans on line such as the one on Biblestudytools.com.  Last year I used our CFC Bible reading plan which includes an OT and a NT reading each day.  This year I am simply reading straight through.

If you can’t quite finish it in one year, that is fine.  Take a year and a half, or two years.  But start reading today!

Have you read through the entire Bible?  How did it impact you?  What encouragement can you give to those who are considering making this commitment?

One of the advantages of reading through the Bible on a regular basis is that you will encounter passages that you might not otherwise read.  In my reading today it was the juxtaposition of the OT and NT readings that raised some interesting questions.

The OT reading for today included Psalm 18, a portion of which reads:

20 The LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD,
and have not wickedly departed from my God.
22 For all his rules were before me,
and his statutes I did not put away from me.
23 I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from my guilt.
24 So the LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.
(Ps. 18:20-24, ESV)

Here David says that God rewards him for his righteousness.  But the NT reading was from Romans 3, which includes these verses:

10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
(Rom. 3:10-12, ESV)

The contrast between these two statements really jumped out at me.  Was David righteous or was he not?  Was he simply deceived or arrogant for claiming to be righteous?  Or was he using the word “righteous” in a different sense? It might be tempting to explain this as a different view of righteousness in the OT and NT, but that won’t do because the Romans passage is excerpted from Ps. 13:1-3 and Ps. 53:1-3.

In Romans Paul is talking about our lack of absolute sinless perfection, but David was talking about something else.  David was very aware of his sinfulness as some of the other Psalms attest (Psalm 51 comes to mind).  So I don’t think that his statement in Psalm 18 was a claim to sinless perfection.  David was aware not only of the need for forgiveness, but also the need for God’s grace to live for Him (Ps. 19:12-13).  Can a person who has needed to confess some serious sin and who needs God’s help every day to walk with Him still talk about “my righteousness” and “the cleanness of my hands”?  Apparently David thought so.

Should we think of ourselves as righteous?  I don’t mean only “positional righteousness” (I am considered righteous by God because Christ died for me) but “practical righteousness” (I generally live my life according to God’s standards).  I am not suggesting a legalistic approach or an arrogant superiority (”I am not like other men,” Lk. 18:11-12).  But if we are serious about following Jesus should we see ourselves as people who normally do the right thing and usually obey God?  Perhaps if we did we might find it a little bit easier to live as God intended us to live.  If we constantly tell ourselves and each other, “You’re going to sin, and sin a lot” it might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What do you think?  Was David right to think of himself as righteous?  How do you think of yourself?

In today’s reading in my church Bible reading program there is a curious phrase:  “Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; Zabud the son of Nathan was priest and king’s friend” (1 Ki 4:5, ESV).  There is nothing unusual about the king having friends, but this statement appears in a list of officials in Solomon’s court: “King Solomon was king over all Israel, 2 and these were his high officials. . .” (vs. 1-2).  All the other titles mentioned in 1 Kings 4:1-6 are clearly government officials, so that made me wonder if the “king’s friend” was also an official position.

Solomon was not the only one to have an official “friend.”  In a list of officials in David’s government we find this statement:  “Ahithophel was the king’s counselor, and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend.”  (1 Ch 27:33, ESV).  Why would “the king’s friend” be listed among top government officials?

We really don’t have a lot to go on here, but it seems likely that “the king’s friend” served as a close personal adviser and confidant.  While it might be anachronistic to say that Zadub was Solomon’s accountability partner, it is possible that he was a close personal friend who had the right to speak the truth to the king.  Apparently this relationship was important enough to be listed among the other high government officials.

We all need someone like that in our lives, someone with whom you can share your deepest secrets, and on whom you can depend to be loyal to you and keep your best interests in mind, and who has the right to speak to you honestly or even bluntly when the situation requires it. Early Celtic Christians called it a “soul friend.”  Brigit of Kildare, an Irish nun and abbess in the fifth century said “Anyone without a soul friend is like a body without a head.”

Of course some who talk about “soul friends” are into kooky mystic stuff.  But the basic concept is sound.  Solomon was given extraordinary wisdom, and he saw a need for such a friend.  Those who are in leadership positions are especially in need of a friend like that.  We are prone to take ourselves too seriously and to neglect nurture of our own souls.  In our individualistic society we tend to try to forge on ahead by ourselves.  God didn’t design us to be lone rangers.

Do you have a “soul friend”?  If not, do you want one?  Are you able to be a “soul friend” to someone else?

In my church Bible reading program we are currently in 2 Kings.  While reading this part of the Bible you may have noticed that it is pretty difficult to sort out the historical flow of kings. That is partly because the narrative keeps jumping between the kings of Judah and those of Israel. Once the kingdom divided after Solomon, there are two interrelated histories, that of Israel (10 of the original tribes) in the north, and Judah (and Benjamin) in the south.

What makes it more confusing is the fact that some of the kings have very similar names, and some kings are referred to by more than one name. Some examples:

• Joash king of Judah is also called Jehoash (these are two forms of the same name). But there was also a different Jehoash who was king of Israel around that time. It is important to pay careful attention to whether is says “of Judah” or “of Israel.”
• Each kingdom had a king named Ahaziah.
• King Azariah of Judah is also called Uzziah. Since he is mentioned in Isaiah 6, we know where to place Isaiah in biblical history.
• There are two kings of Israel named Jeroboam. The first one, whom we may call Jeroboam I is called Jeroboam the son of Nebat in the Bible. He was the first king of Israel after the division between the northern and southern kingdoms, and he started Israel down the path of idolatry. Many of the later kings of Israel are condemned for not departing from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.
• Several of the kings have very similar sounding names, such as: Azariah, Ahaziah, Amahziah, Athaliah (queen mother).  It is helpful to consult a chart to keep things straight.

At the right is a helpful diagram I found on Wikipedia that shows the flow of kings of Judah and Israel along with their genealogical relationships (click on the chart for a larger image). The solid lines indicate genealogical relationships, and the arrows indicate succession. The horizontal arrows indicate a change in dynasty, that is, a king succeeded by someone who is not his son.

One of the interesting things that jumps out at me in this chart is that all of the kings of Judah are David’s descendants while in Israel there is only one king who had passed the throne on to his grandson and beyond. God promised David that he would always have a son on the throne (2 Sam. 7:16). Since Jesus is descended from David, one day in God’s kingdom David will still have a son on the throne.

For those of you doing the Bible reading program, what have you been learning from 2 Kings?

What does righteous behavior look like?  Ezekiel 18:5-18 emphasizes individual responsibility, and states that God will not reward a wicked son because he has a righteous father or punish the righteous son of a wicked father.  In this discussion, the passage lists righteous/wicked behavior in three lists that are very similar.  Here is the first one: Read the rest»»