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?

ShareThis

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?

ShareThis

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?

ShareThis

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?

ShareThis

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?

ShareThis

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?

ShareThis

“5But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, 6and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period— 7if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, 8if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, 9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully—he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord GOD.”

Benchmarks of Righteousness

This passage begins and ends with a general statement about practicing justice and righteousness.  Between these two statements are a number of specific behaviors that describe a righteous lifestyle:

• No idolatry (v. 6)
• Sexual purity (v. 6)
• Does not take advantage of the poor and powerless (v. 7) — the opposite to this quality in v. 12 is “oppresses the poor and needy”
• Does not not take what is not his (”robbery,” v. 7) — in v. 15 this is described as not taking a pledge, and the opposite quality in v. 12 is “does not restore a pledge, so this probably refers to holding onto collateral for a loan to the poor
• Provides material assistance to the poor (v. 7)
• Does not lend money [to the poor] to collect interest (v. 7) — loans to the poor at a high interest rate seem to be in view here, because the restatement in v. 17 has “he keeps his hand from 1the poor, does not take interest or increase.”  The opposite behavior is described as “extortion” in v. 18.

Obviously this list is not intended to be a complete description of a righteous life, but rather to provide a representative sample of what righteous behavior looks like.  The striking thing about this list is that with the exception of the first two items the list revolves around our treatment of the poor and powerless.  I wonder how many church people today would come up with a list similar to this one when asked to describe a righteous lifestyle?  Again, there are many other things that could legitimately be included here from elsewhere in Scripture, but the fact remains that the treatment of the poor receives major emphasis in the OT.  I wonder how righteous we are by this standard?

Salvation by Works?

This passage clearly states that if we conduct our lives in this way we will live, while if we do the opposite we will “die,” because “the soul who sins will die” (v. 4, cf. vs. 19-20).  How should we understand this passage in the context of the NT?  Is this salvation by works?

There are two approaches to this question that I find extreme and reductionistic and which I am unable to reconcile with Scripture:

1. Salvation by works in the OT

Some argue that in the OT salvation was by works while in the NT it is by grace.  But even in OT times, could anyone be saved by good behavior?  No, because we all fall short of God’s standards (Rom. 3:9-10,23).  Abraham was justified by faith, not by works (Rom. 4:3-5).

2. Impossible standards designed to drive us to Grace

Some see the OT law as nothing more than a device to show us that we can never meet God’s righteous standards on our own.  Certainly one important function of OT law is to reveal God’s righteous standards, but what was an OT reader of Ezekiel supposed to make of these verses?  Is their only function to cause us to despair of living a righteous life?

But we must take this passage seriously in its own context, and not use our NT theology to force it to mean something that it does not say. I think that the focus of these verses is on the characteristics of a righteous life rather than the means of salvation.  A more complete study of the Scriptures would reveal that God is concerned with our hearts as well as (not “rather than”) our behavior.  James argues that Abraham was justified by works in the sense that he had genuine faith that produced righteous behavior in his life, rather than the dead faith of mere intellectual assent (James 2:21-24).  In other words, the Ezekiel passage describes the characteristics that should be evident in the life of a genuine believer.  If they are missing, there is legitimate cause for concern.

ShareThis

Upon reading this statement (see link above) I have come away with several impressions:

1. His writing style is very unlike the short, terse prose typical of this age of sound bytes. He is not afraid to write lengthy, complex sentences. But don’t let that detract you, because it is well worth the effort of working through his text.
2. He describes himself in the most derogatory terms: “the worst of the wicked, the vilest of the sons of Adam, a renegade spirit, a man perishing altogether.” At first this might seem like hyperbole (was he really the worst sinner in the world?), but it is probably better to understand this as the heart-felt expression of his feeling of complete unworthiness of God’s grace. Introducing a series of requests, he states:
   

   “If a thing created may stipulate with the Creator, if ashes and dust, if a noisome dunghill may covenant with a Being most holy, the omnipotent Governor of all nature, I seek, ask, demand, importune from Thee, pitying Father, with most humble and agitated heart, and with all zeal and ardour of spirit. . .”

   Advocates of the modern self esteem movement might be concerned that he had an unhealthy self image, but those who have studied godly people of the past will recognize this as the proper attitude of a sinner approaching a holy God. In Scripture, even the most godly people who had a close encounter with God reacted in a similar way (e.g. Isa. 6:1-5).

3. Throughout this piece he expresses his complete reliance on God’s grace. It is only when we recognize the utter hopelessness of becoming righteous by our own efforts that we truly appreciate our desperate need for the grace of God.
4. His spiritual aspirations and commitments to God put to shame our half-hearted devotion and lukewarm zeal. At least in the West, it is difficult to find contemporaries who express this sort of unreserved and uncompromising commitment to God.

What do you think of this covenant? Can you relate to his spiritual hopes and aspirations?

ShareThis

ShareThis

To many, Christianity is a religious system that has much in common with the other religions of the world. Most of them teach that we should live for a higher purpose, treat others well, and try not to be too selfish. In that case, what really matters is that the teachings of Jesus live on. What happened to his body after his death isn’t really important.

When I was a college student, one day I was looking through the religion section of the library. I found a book with the title “Easter Faith and History,” and I thought that it looked like an interesting Christian book. But after spending a few minutes reading though the book, I discovered that the author believed describes the belief of others[correction: see comment below] that “Easter faith” had no connection whatever to what happened to the body of Jesus. To him, what was important was that the message of Jesus lived on in the church.

There are quite a few people who accept this view of the Christian faith, including some theologians. In preparing for my Easter message, I came across this quotation from NT scholar Marcus Borg:

I now see Easter very differently. For me it is irrelevant whether or not the tomb was empty. Whether Easter involved something remarkable happening to the physical body of Jesus is irrelevant. My argument is not that we know the tomb was not empty or that nothing happened to his body, but simply that it doesn’t matter. The truth of Easter, as I see it, is not at stake in this issue. [M. Borg, The Meaning of Jesus, p. 131.]

That’s how Marcus Borg and many other scholars see it. The Apostle Paul had a different idea:

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:17-19)

According to the New Testament, the bodily resurrection of Jesus makes all the difference. The resurrection validates Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and demonstrates the finality of His victory over sin and death. Jesus predicted His own resurrection on numerous occasions, and in doing so He staked His credibility on the fact of the resurrection. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, then he was nothing more than a pious fraud.

The fact is that the Christian faith is founded on God’s acts in human history. Because of this, it can never be reduced to a mere religious philosophy or moral code. If Jesus was not who He claimed to be, and if He did not die in our place on the cross and rise from the dead, then there is no point in being a Christian because there is nothing left of the Christian faith.

In the words of NT scholar George Ladd:

The uniqueness of the scandal of the Christian religion rests on the mediation of revelation through historical events. Christianity is not just a code for living or a philosophy of religion. It is rooted in real events of history. To some people this is scandalous because it means that the truth of Christianity is inexplicably bound up with the truth of certain historical facts. And if those facts should be disproved, Christianity would be false. This, however, is what makes Christianity unique because, unlike other world religions, modern man has a means of actually verifying Christianity’s truth by historical evidence.

Many opponents to Christianity have understood this, and so have worked tirelessly to provide arguments against the resurrection of Jesus. One such opponent was a British lawyer named Frank Morrison, who set out to disprove the resurrection by carefully examining the evidence on the basis of the legal standards for evidence used in the courtroom. Part way through his research, he was convinced by the evidence and became a Christian! You can read about his studies in his book Who Moved the Stone?. In the first chapter, titled “The Book that Refused to be Written,” he tells his story.

For further reading see Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by William Lane Craig. In this article he interacts with contemporary biblical scholars and explains why the bodily resurrection of Jesus best explains the evidence that we have.

ShareThis