Tag Archives: Bible study

New Bible readers don’t need a concordance

1 Reply

I’ve mentioned that when I was growing up, I thought the epistles were compilations of proverbs, short sayings basically unconnected to one another. I had always heard a verse quoted from here and another from there; I didn’t realize that the epistles were letters with main themes and logical arguments. In other words, I knew nothing about context.

A lot of new Bible readers are the same way. Maybe they’ve seen Bible verses posted here and there on social media. Possibly someone has studied with them some and has used chains of verses in those studies. However it happens, many people view the Bible as the collected sayings of holy men, rather than an anthology of books written by and for God’s people.

I’ll mention that I have a growing distrust of memory verses. Memory verses rarely lead you to think in context. They get you to focus on individual words stripped of context. They’re a bit like some of the quotations you see from famous people; ripped from their original place in a work of literature or a speech, these quotes are often made to say things that the person they are attributed to never intended.

In Bible times, memorization was not uncommon, but it was typically the memorization of entire books of the Bible, rather than individual verses. That allows the learner to think in terms of sections and paragraphs rather than individual words and sentences.

With new readers, we need to steer them away from island hopping their way through the Bible. Don’t hand a new reader a concordance. Hand them a reading plan, one that reads the Bible book by book.

Where to start reading the Bible

Leave a reply

Last week I began sharing some thoughts about what to teach a newcomer about how to read the Bible. I made some suggestions about some broad themes; let me mention a few specific ideas.

  • I don’t like to hand someone a Bible and leave them. There’s really no support for that in the Bible itself. The closest we come is Phillip and the Ethiopian; after a few hours conversation, Phillip leaves the man. However, the Ethiopian was not a complete newcomer to Scripture; he was apparently a convert to Judaism. He probably had the support of a synagogue back home.
    People need some guidance as they begin to read. The ideal is for someone to commit to walk with them in their journey through the Bible for a few months, at minimum.
  • I teach people that the Bible is an anthology, not a book. The average person supposes that the Bible was written in a fairly short period of time by a handful of people working together. It helps to show people that the Bible is made up of dozens of books written over a span of more than 1000 years.
  • I suggest that people NOT begin in Genesis. I tell people to begin in the gospels. If I were drawing up an initial reading plan, it would look a bit like this:

    Gospel of Mark
    Gospel of John
    Acts 1-21
    Galatians
    Ephesians
    Genesis
    Exodus 1-20
    Skim Exodus 21ff.
    Hebrews
    Romans

Some comments on that reading start. I want them to see Jesus first. I choose a synoptic; Mark is my preference, but anyone of the three is good. I then have them read John to get a broader view of who Jesus is.

Then we move to Acts, partly to see the beginning of the church, partly to get the context for the epistles. Galatians both illustrates the occasional nature of the letters and gives some basic teaching about the gospel. Ephesians gives a vision of what maturity in Christ is to look like.

We then read Genesis to learn about the promises made to Abraham. The first part of Exodus presents several of the mighty acts of God which form the foundation for much of the identity of God’s people. It’s worth skimming the rest of Exodus to then understand what Hebrews is talking about. At this point, the person should be ready for bigger books like Hebrews and Romans.

Those are some of the basics. Suggestions?

Dipping my toes in the waters of the lectionary

1 Reply

(I try not to bore you with too much behind-the-scenes technical info. Let me just say that not everything is working as it should. For now, I can post, and you can comment; that’s the most important stuff, right?)

The other day I talked about the Christian calendar. Along the way, I mentioned that I’ve been following the lectionary. Let me comment on that.

  • To me, the lectionary is basically a structured Bible reading plan. At its core, it’s merely a listing of Bible verses to be read at a certain time.
  • At a deeper level, I think the lectionary provides me with a community to read and study with. It’s a broad community, made up largely of people I don’t know. Their views are widely divergent, which in this case I view as a good thing. I need to hear the views of people I disagree with, not just those that see things as I do.
  • The lectionary leads me to places in Scripture I wouldn’t necessarily go. I don’t mean interpretations, but parts of the text that I might not read otherwise. I’ve found the same to be true when teaching through a book or even teaching a book that I’ve never taught before. (Paul wisely observed the other days that there are holes in the lectionary’s selections; this is very true, as is true of every systematic approach to teaching Scripture I’ve seen)
  • So far, I haven’t seen much interest in those that fill in when I’m not preaching. However, the lectionary would provide continuity should they choose to follow the readings.

A couple of resources that I use are lectionarypage.net and textweek.com. Take a look at those pages if you want to learn more about the lectionary.

Studying the Bible until it hurts

Leave a reply

bible studyWhen comparing ancient manuscripts of the Bible and trying to reconcile the differences between those manuscripts, one rule of thumb is that the hardest reading is often the original one. That is, one can see why a scribe would “correct” a text that says something difficult, but it’s less likely that they would take a simple statement and make it harder.

To some degree, I think the same applies to biblical interpretation. Not that we should seek obscure meanings or secret codes within the text. What I’m saying is that I trust someone’s conclusions more when I realize those conclusions aren’t necessarily what the person wants them to be.

It’s a bit like some news I heard the other day. A study found that a certain medication greatly reduces the risk of heart disease. The study was funded by the company that makes that medication. That makes me less likely to accept their findings as valid.

Years ago, when speaking about a now-defunct publication, one of my friends said, “It’s like they’re saying, ‘Yay, the Bible finally says what we always wanted it to say.'”

I often hear someone say, “Here’s a great study about this topic.” Usually what they mean is that the study agrees with their position. Rarely are they enamored of the methodology; they like the outcome.

We need to be willing to study the Bible until it hurts. We need to follow Jesus not because he makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, but because he challenges us to re-examine every aspect of our life. We need to dig into the Bible until what we read makes us think, “Surely it can’t mean that.”

I’m pointing the finger at everyone else, but especially at me. It’s time for some painful Bible study.

The innovation that is the printed Bible

12 Replies

BibleThere was an article that made the rounds the last few weeks, talking about the importance of preachers carrying a traditionally-bound Bible into the pulpit instead of using an electronic version. Several of the arguments centered around the need for people to study out of a “normal” Bible.

I tend to disagree. I think we face some problems in the church because we’ve come to see the Bible in this format as normal. We kind of picture Paul whipping out his Leather study Bible and saying to the people in Troas, “Let’s turn to Romans chapter 8.”

The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received the complete book of Mormon (and other works) and had divine guidance in translating the material. It’s a book written as a book and designed to be read as a book.

The Bible isn’t like that. It wasn’t written as one book; it was written as dozens of books. It wasn’t written to be read per se; it was written to be heard. The presupposition wasn’t that each church member would have his own copy to study from; it was assumed that the church would gather, hear Scripture read aloud, and discuss the meaning of the text.

What happens when we assume that the Bible has always been around in the form that it’s been in?

  • We assume that we can interpret Matthew based on Acts and Ephesians (to choose some books at random). We’re much safer in using Old Testament books to help us understand Matthew. We can’t assume that Matthew expected his readers to have access to other New Testament writings nor did he necessarily think they had received all the teachings contained in those books.
  • We let chapter and verse numbering get in the way, as well as headings that have been included in most printed Bibles. These study aids can be a great help, but they can get in the way at times, interrupting the natural flow of a biblical writer’s arguments.
  • We make individual Bible study the norm rather than group Bible study. I’m definitely in favor of personal Bible study; I do a radio program in Spanish called “Read The Bible,” seeking to help people read and study the Word of God. But I think we’ve forgotten that the Bible was designed to be a community book, shared and interpreted by the body of Christ.
  • We forget to hear the Word. Reading leads us to nitpick over jots and tittles; we need to be sure that we hear the Bible in a broader way.

What do you think?

photo courtesy of MorgueFile.com